BRISTOL RECORD SOCIETY'S

P U BLICATIONS

VOL. XXIX

l iRIS 'fOL AND ITS ~IUt~ICIPAL

G(:,·VERNMENT 1820-1851

BRISTOL RECORD SOCIETY'S PUBLICATIONS

General Editor: PROFESSOR P ATRICK M CGRATH, M .A . Assistant General Editor: MISS ELIZABETH RALPH , M.A ., F .S.A.

VOL . XXIX

BRISTOL AND ITS MUNICIPAL

GOY ERN M ENT 1820- 1851

T he constitutio n of Bristo l Record Society drawn up in 1929 lays down tha t the purpose o f the Society sha ll be to encourage the p reserva tion, the study and the pu blica­tio n of histo rical documents rela ting to the histo ry of Bristo l, but it a lso permits the pub lication of works concerning the histo ry o f Bristo l based o n o rigina l docu­ments. Dr. Gra ham Bush 's exa mina tio n of the govern­ment o f Bristo l between 1820 and 185 1 is the first mo nograph o f this kind to be published by the Society.

Patrick McGrath Hon. General Ediwr

BRISTOL AND ITS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

1820- 1851

BY

GRA HAM BUSH

Printed for the

BRISTOL RECORD SOCIETY

1976

ISS : 0305 - 8727

© GRMIAM BUSH, 1976

Printed in Great Britain by Tile Northumberland Press Limited, Gateshead

UNIVERSITY t . Of" eRISTOL

CON TENTS

PREI'AC'E

PART ONE THE LAST Y EARS OF THE UN REFORMED SYSTEM

I. The City and it s Government in the Eighteen-

PAGE

VII

Twenties 3 2. The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 17 3. The Functions and Activit ies of the Corporation 42 4. The Financial System 72 5. The Old System Reviewed 80 6. The Adven t of Reform . 94

P ART T wo THE BEGI I G OF THE REP RESE1 TATIVE SYSTEM

7. TheChangesin 1835 11 3 8. The Structure and Poli tics of the Council 126 9. The Functions and Acti vities of the Council 152

I 0. The Fi nancial System 182 I I. The New System Reviewed 189 12. The Old and the ew 205

S ELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY . 216

APPE DI X I P AID OFFIC ERS AND EMPLOYEES 226

APPENDIX 2 INCOME AND E XPENDITU RE 1820- 1835 AND

1836-1 85 1 229

APPE OIX 3 PRI NC IPAL LOCAL ACTS APPLYING TO BRISTOL

1800-1 85 1 23 1

APPE DIX 4 BIOGRAPHI CA L NOTES ON M EMBERS OF T HE

CORPORATIO ' . 234

APPE DIX 5 BIOGRAPI-II CAL OTES o Tow • Cou C ILLORS . 238

I OEX . 247

PREFACE

The general history of Bristol in the nineteenth century has received comparatively little attention from histori ans, and this neglect extends in fu11 measure to the governing body of a ci ty which proudly claimed that in its history, tradition and importance, it ranked second only to London. It is surprising that no sustained study has hitherto been made of the government of Bristol during any part of the nineteenth century.

It is the purpose of this book to examine the way in which Bristol was governed in the years immediately before and immediately after the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. The study begins in 1820, not because that date has any special significance in itself, but because it a llows local government to be exa mined for a reasonable period of time before the coming of reform. The terminal date of 185 1 can be more ea ily justified since it was in that year that the Town Council , through the Local Board of Health, became in effect a public health authority. The docks had been brought under municipal control three years earlier, and so in the mid-nineteenth century, the city government entered into a brave new world of greatly extended activity.

Both before and aft er the Municipal Reform Act of 1835 there existed a Corporation of Bristol consisting of the Mayor. Aldermen and Council. Up to 1835, the Council was known as the Common Council and was a closed body fi11in g vacancie by cooption. After 1835, the Council wa known as the Town Council and its members were elected by the ratepaye rs. Although it is not technically accurate, it is nevertheless convenient in this book to refer to the governing body before reform as the Corpora tion or the Old Corpora ti on and to the governin g body from 1835 as the Council or Town Cou ncil.

The first part of this work examines the last yea rs of the un­reformed system, and the second deals wi th the early years of the representati ve system. From an examination of the two different systems it is possible w give an answer to the question of whether the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 brought about something like a .. revolutionary" change. There ma y we11 be different opinions about the extent of the changes, since in some respects the new authority established in 1835 had much in common wi th its prede­cessor, bu t neverthele after 1835 there clea rly existed in Bristol a

VIII Preface

general governing authority responsible to an electo ra te and this had very importa nt consequences, the nature of which is discussed in detail.

This study is based on my Ph.D . thesis .. The Old and the New: The Corpo ration of Bristo l 1820- 185 1" which was submitted to the U ni versity of Bristo l in 1965. Since 1965 regrettabl y little new research has been done on the subject of local government in Bristol , either chro nologically or topically, a nd the additional work which I did when I spent a sabba tical year in Bristol has no t led me to depart dramatically from the main conclusions which I reached in my thesis. On a number of questions, however, I have put a different emphasis, and the whole of the thesis has been extensively revised and rewritten. Many of the a ppendices in the thesis have had to be sacrificed to the exigencies o f space and some have been inco r­porated into the text, but I have retained five appendices, including biographical no tes on members of governing body in the period 1820- 185 1, many o f who m were Bristors acknowledged leaders fo r over half a century ..

I should like to acknowledge my gratitude to Bristo l Record Society for agreeing to publish a work which unlike the earlier volumes in the series is no t a collection of record ma terial, even altho ugh it is based o n a detai led study of the primary sources. The Society's Hono rary G eneral Editor Pat rick McGrath gave me a grea t deal of a sista nce in the difficult task of transforming my dissertation into a book and made many helpful c riticisms. Miss Elizabeth Ralph, the former archivist of the City of Bristo l, also worked thro ugh the whole of the manuscript and preven ted me fro m making a number of erro rs. Dr. Brian Atkinson o f the University of Kent brought his broad knowledge o f Bristo l to bear on the first a nd the final chapters, a nd Mr. David Large, my former supervisor, gave me a great deal of help and encouragement. evertheless I must myself take responsibil ity for any erro rs o f fact or j udgment.

The Bristo l Corporatio n's Record Office was very helpful in producing the records I req uired, and the City Archivist, Miss C. E. Willia ms, made ma ny suggestio ns regarding new or overl ooked sources of info rma tio n. At her suggestion, the working papers and research cards of the orig inal d isserta tion were deposited in the Record Office as an o ffic ia l accessio n. The Universi ty of Bristol very kindly made me a Research Associate attached to the History Depa rtment a nd provided working faci lities.

Finally, I a m no t unmindful o f the fact that the whole project was practicable o nly beca u e the U niversity of Auckland agreed to give me a sabbatical year and because my colleag.ues in the Politica l Studies Department were will ing to fill the gap created by my absence.

GRAHAM B USH

PART ONE

THE LAST YEARS OF THE UNREFORMED SYSTEM

- - - - -- - - - -

C H APTE R ONE

TH E C ITY A D ITS GOVE R M E T I N TH E E IG HT E E N-TW EN TIES

As the nineteenth century entered its thi rd decade, Bri sto l continued to expand , both in physical extent and in population. Medieval Bristol, the seventeen o riginal pa rishes centering on the fo rk between the River Frome and the o ld course of the Avon, was now, relati vely speaking, only a shrinking nucleus of the built-up area. Admittedly, recent growth had transformed St. Michael, St. Ja mes, St. Pa ul a nd St. Augustine into populous parishes. Yet even they were being over­shadowed by Cli fton 's development as a fashiona ble suburb a nd Bedminster's new ro le as an area into which the working class was migrating. The centra l city, infested with dank, dark lanes, was no longer capa ble of containing the thrust o f commercia l dema nds and the grander aspirat ions of many inhabitants. In two decades Bristol's popula tion rose by over 20 ,000. Between 1801 and 18 11 this upsurge gave Bristo l's numbers a g reater boost tha n any other provincial town except fo r Birmingham , Liverpool and Ma nchester. By 182 1, Bristo l was on the verge of containing I 00,000 people.1

Ten years la ter, the figure was 11 7,016, the most dynamic growth occurring in St. Phi lip a nd Jacob Without ( 15, 777), Bedminster ( 13, 130) and Cl ifton ( 12,032). With the no ta ble exception ofCiifton, 2

planning sca rcely constrained property developers capitalizing on the boom. Between 180 I and 183 1, Bristo l's decennial popu la tion increases of respectively 21·2%, 18·15% and 2 1·67% outstripped in a ll three census periods the nationa l growth ra tes of 14%, 18·05% and 15·8%.

Bristol's economic transition was less spectacular . In the eight­eenth centu ry, thanks chiefl y to the wealth which shipping, West India sugar and slaves had brought, prosperity had a lmost come to be ta ken fo r granted. Until the advent of the nineteenth century or even beyond, this feeling seemed justified. The port was the most advantageous termina l of the main routes from Africa and the West lndies, and the city 's commercia l interests were diversified . Romaine Thorn expressed this sublime confidence in 1794:

1 Bristol "on the ground'' consisted of the ancient city (55,889), the Barton Regis Hundred (34,890) and Bedminster (7.979).

2 For details of the development of Clifton. sec Waiter I son. The Georgian Buildings of Bristol ( London. 1952), pp. 25-28.

4 Bristol and Its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

Majestic Bristol! to thy happy port Pro lific COMMERCE makes its lov'd resort; Thy gallant ships, with spacio us sai ls, unfurl'd, Waft, to thy sho re, the treasures of the world ! With each production of the East a nd West, Thy favor'd citizens are amply blest; Thy active sons, unceasingly a re sway'd By HO NOR, JUSTI CE, and a thirst for T RADE. 3

An extensive hinterland of South-West Engla nd, South Wales and the So uth-West Midlands then drew sustenance from Bristol as a market, distribution centre and source o f capital. A further fill ip came in 1808 when the construction of the Floating Harbour was completed . Enervated West India enterprises were being supplanted by an imposing complex o f import-export firms, still trading pre­do minant ly in traditio na l merchandise.

There were, however, some noticeable cracks in the fat;ade of pros­perity. As England's former third ci ty, and one where plentiful seaso nal employment was available in retail trades and light industry, Bristol was na turally a la rge consumer of products. But the income to purchase these had to be earned. For those whose fortunes were staked in the city, it was o mino us tha t local raw ma terials were limited and that the industrial revoluti o n had not transported Bristol o ut of a quiet backwater in respect of coal, iron and textiles.

Flourishing light industries like Wills' tobacco and Fry's chocolate could no t compensate for this sho rtco ming. To some extent Bristol may have faltered because no substantial industria l base was being erected . Yet even in its chosen fields of commerce and trade Bristol was losing momentum. Between 18 16 and 1825 the average annual to nnage of vessels berthing at Bristol was 122,423 compared with Liverpool's 87 1,7 13 and Southampton 's 50,58 1. In the ensuing decade these competito rs improved by 45%· and 20% respectively, while Bristo l struggled to produce a 9% increase. 4 Stiffening rivalry a nd the weakening of the West India connection were part ly respon­sible, and the economic hinterland was withering. The effect o f the West India connection was pa radoxical. As George Tho mas, a rich who lesa le grocer and future councillor, insisted in 1833: " Without the West India trade Bristo l would be but a fishing port." Bristol capital had been heavily tied up in this hitherto profitable pursuit: o nly with the weakening of this link were the conditions created for loca l enterprises to show whether they could prosper. The economic

3 From .. Bris tolia : A Poem··. by Romaine Joseph Thorn; in Edward Martin and Bill Pickard (eds.), 600 Years of Bristol Poetry (Bris to l, 1973), p. 19. See also W. E. Minchinton (ed.), The Trade of Bristol in the Eighteemh Century (Bristol: Bristol Record Society, 1957).

4 Ca lcula ted from Return of Vessels and Tonnage entered and cleared at each of the Tll·eh·e Principal Ports of rhe Unired Kingllom ... f rom 1816 ro 1845, P.P., 1847, (1 23), C ll .

The City and its Government in the Eighteen-Tll'enties 5

malaise was not entirely due to circumstances beyond Bristol's control. It is true that ships had to contend with the tortuous, exceptionally-tidal Avon, but partly to blame were the traditiona l port dues. These multifa rious and often excessive imposts frightened away many shippers. As a beneficiary of certain dues, the Corpora­tion of Bristol denied tha t that they were discouraging trade. A series of critics held a contrary view, 5 their dissent being endorsed by the commissioners who investigated the Corporation in 1833:

It is notorious tha t the trade of Bristol has not kept pace with the increase of other ports, once its rivals. Far below her former sta tion, as the second po rt of the Empire, she now has to susta in mortifying competition with second-rate ports in her own channel; ... 6

This slackening of economic endeavour had widespread repercus­sions. In the qua rter-century preceding 1826, when the poor ra te reached a new peak, it had soared by 100%, as against a national figure of 50%. Of Bristo l's 14,084 dwellings in 1820, I ,045 were empty. Property values, usually a reliable index of prosperity, had, by one calculation, depreciated by between 30% and 40% in the two decades prio r to 1833. 7 T o the perceptive, things were not totally shipshape and Bristo l fashion .

The trend should no t be exaggera ted, for there was no mass exodus of inhabitants seeking a more congenial abode. Bristo l's natural assets were not to be despised: fert ile agricul tural land abounded nearby, and workable deposits of coal, stone and lime, and copious water reserves were a ll located in the vicinity. Cobbett 's o bservations in 1830 were at va ria nce with those expressed by the pessimists:

A good and solid a nd wealthy city; a peo ple of plain a nd good manners; private virtue and public spirit united; ... A great com­mercial ci ty in the midst of cornfields, meadows and woods and the ships coming into the centre of it miles from a nything like the sea .... 8

It may be that his stay had been too brief for him to gain anything but a superficial impression. For some the portents were indeed dire, and there were mutterings a bout Bristo l being d ragged into a reces­sion, but such views were too harsh. There is no doubt that fortunes were still being amassed and tha t investors retained their confidence

s Infra, pp. 47-51. • The Firsr Reporr of rhe Commissioners appoinred ro inquire inro rhe Municipal

Corporarions of England and Wales: Reporr on rhe Ciry and Counry of Brisrol, p. 61 , H.C., 1835, (116), XXIII-XXVI.

' .. A Burgess .. (J. 13. Kington), Lerrers, Essays, Tracrsandorher Documenrs. illusrra­rive ofrhe Municipal llisrory of Brisrol and ofrhe Trade of irs Parr (Bristol: n.p., 1836), p. 321 .

8 Quoted in Ern est Walls. The Briswl A mn (Bristol, 1927), pp. 30 1-302.

'

6 Brisrol and irs Municipal Governmenl 1820- 185 1

ity interests contributed nobly to the Great Western Railway scheme in 1833. Sufficient money circulated to support 378 public houses and taverns in 18 16. Absolute decay o r even stagnation were figments of the imagination. The truth is that, compared wi th Liver­pool , Newcastle and other centres, Bristol's pursuit of economic progress was more sedate. As a student of Bristol 's economic history has remarked:

Bo th the local employers with a few exceptions a nd the operatives were averse to change . ... The industrial enterprise and com­mercia l activity which elsewhere was the result of the industrial revolution did no t affect Bristo l till 1833-35, and by that time her rivals had esta blished themselves beyond challenge.9

Bristo l could be prone to complacency, a nd influentia l citizens of both political persuasions felt it desirable to air in public misgivings about Bristol's economic prospects. It was futile blaming vast im­personal forces, but very close a t hand was a possible culpri t. Was

1 no t the Corporation , by its neglect a nd by its support , for local exactions, demonstrating that it ca red little about trade being the lifeblood of the city?

A number of di fferent bodies were responsible for deal ing with the problems of Bristol. Of these, the Corporation of Bristol , which is exa mined in the next fi ve cha pters, and its parochial counterpart , the Select Vestries, were the most venera ble and, perhaps, the most hidebound. They had gradually evolved distinct function s wi thin the same overall area. Other bodies had come into being because of antipa thy towards further enla rgement o f the powers of the Corpora­tion o r because o f disbelief in its competence. In this category were the Turnpike Trustees and the Paving Commissioners. The Incor­poration of the Poor and severa l quasi-public bod ies such as the Dock Company completed the pattern. The prestigious Society of Merchant Venturers exercised jurisdiction over certain aspects of the port, which was managed by the Dock Compa ny, nominall y for commercia l profit.

The most striking fea ture of Bristol's local government arrange­ments was the interdependence of the severa l bodies, especially in personnel. Uppermost in the structure was the Corporation, which enjoyed an unchallenged sta tus as the premier local body in Bristol. Less than omnipo tent but more tha n fi rst a mong equals, the Cor­po ration was ambivalent over its exact place in the system. Under duress, it was apt to deny any overrid ing responsibili ty for the general welfare. Yet a perusal of its charters shows that it was the o nly body capable of fulfilling such a role. On the few occasions when Bristol events compelled the a ttenti on of the Government, the Corporation

• A. J . Pugslcy . .. Some con tribut ions towards the study o f the economic develop­ment o f Bristo l in the 18th a nd 19th centuries .. , (M.A., University o f Bristol, 1921), pa pcrV.pp. l4 and 15.

The City and its Governmem in the Eighteen-Twenties 7

expected to be the body consulted or castigated. lt had been the Corpora tion 's constant objective to ensure tha t it gained ex officio participation, a nd thus means of influence, in every o ther local autho rity. By 1820 it was closely identified in outlook and composi­tion with most of its fe llows, though it probably did not accord them equal standing. Apart from the Corporation, there were six bodies which could be regarded as perfo rming in varying degrees public functions. Out of four created by statute, the Corpo ra tion was represented ex officio on three- the Incorpora tion of the Poor, the Turnpike Trustees and the Dock Company. Even the fourth- the Paving Commi ssioners- was not entirely independen t o f the Corporati on, as the justices in session, o therwise the aldermen of the Corporation, made the final selection from parochial nominees.

The Corporation's rela tionship with the two non-statuto ry bodies was even more intima te. Among the Corporation a nd the Merchant Venturers there was a significant degree of common membership, 1 while the Select Vestries conveyed the impression a t times that they were will ing underlings of the Corporation. Before examining the connection between the e a nd other bodies and the Corporation, it is necessary to ou tline their structure and functions a nd then to con­sider the na ture and activities o f the Corporation itself.

At the helm in each of the seventeen parishes in the ancient city I was a Select Vestry. Most of the select vestries had an unbroken olJ lineage back to the early seventeenth century, or even beyond, and, of course, the parochial system itself lay a t the very roots of English local government. Theoretically, the vestries guided their parishes in such everyday mat ters as roadmending, the relief of destitution and the provision of watchmen, and also supervised strictly church affai rs. Until 1823 the principal officers of the vestries, the church­wardens, acted as collectors on behalf of those bodies empowered to levy rates. The Webbs remarked on the tendency for the vestries to hand over secular matters, such as maintenance of the poor, to the churchwardens a nd overseers, and to confine themselves to dis­cussing minor issues like the leaking church roof, the unkempt burial ground and upkeep of the fabric of the church. 10 Although they= did not present any evidence, the Webbs thought tha t the Bristo l vestries a lso acted as " Tory electioneering clubs, in shameless electoral a lliance" with the Corporation. 11 Because the offices of churchwa rden, overseer or constable were anything but sinecures, a ffluent cit izens were inclined to contract out of their obligation by payment of a fine . Some formal link between the Corporation a nd each Select Vestry was provided by the a ldermen, who discha rged responsibility for the C ity's twelve wards, which consisted of single or combined parishes. With the Corporation 's blessing, matters l o rdinari ly affec ting the inha bitants at the parochial level had

'0 Sidncy and Bcutricc Webb, English Local Government .. . The Parish and the

County (London, 1906), p. 227. 11 Ibid., p. 242.

------------------------------- - ----

!~====~~~==========~================

8 Bri/itol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

'devolved on to the parish institutions. This arrangement seems to have worked well , for in the period 1820-1 835 no clash between the Corporation and a ny vestry over prerogatives is known to have occurred. However, espousal ofundeviating T ory sentiments was not calculated to endear the vestries to the lower classes. Consequently, in crucial local issues, such as the building of a new gaol in 18 15, or the fi xing of compensation fo r damage ca used by the Rio ts in 183 1, the vestries had been bypassed in favour of popularly-chosen committees o f parochial deputies.

Also playing a slight but definite public ro le was the august Society of Mercha nt Venturers. It was a champion of the commercial interests o f Bristo l, but its concern for the po rt 's well-being was no t en tirely alt ruistic, for it levied , on lease from the Corporation, cranage, wharfage, plankage, anchorage a nd moorage dues, the proceeds of which were supposed to maintain quays, wharves and cranes. In addition, the Merchant Ven turers also effectively licensed and con tro lled the pi lo ts who navigated ships in coastal waters. The right to nomina te one-third of the Dock Compa ny directors gave it another mea ns of influence over port affa irs. The privilege of membership of the Society was no t easily won: from 1803 until 1838 its deliberate policy was evidently not to make good depletions in its ranks. 1 2 In 1833 the Municipal Corpora tions Commissioners were to ld tha t the ro ll stood at eighty-two, of whom only 30% had not held any office. At this stage fifteen of the eighty-two were also members of the Corporation. Over the period studied ( 1820-1 835) twenty of the sixty-nine who had held municipal o ffice had at some time been members and officeho lders in the Society. The predomin­ance of Tories (fi fteen to five) among this group reflected the growing political exclusiveness of the Corporation. When accusations were made a bout the languishing state of the po rt , 13 the Society was frequently a prime target. The Society was possibl y embarrassed at the formation of the C ha mber of Commerce in 1823, for this stemmed mainly from discontent wi th the Society's apparent in­d ifference to factors which were inhibiting trade.

Centra l to Bristol's well-being was the Dock Company, founded in 1803 to promote the constructi on of the F loating Harbour and thereafter to control its operation. Along wi th the Merchant Venturers, the Corporation nominated one-third of the directorate, bu t had no interest in the di vidends. The Dock Company was no t the legal "owner" o f the port , the title being vested in the Corpora tion. O riginal estimates of the cost of fl oat ing the ha rbour, a n engineering marvel, were so astray that a mending Acts progres-

' 2 See Pa t rick McGrath. Tire Merchant Venturers of Bristol (Bristo l, 1975), chapter 16: Joh n La timer. Tire History of tire Society of Merchant Venturers of tire City of Bristol ( Bristol. 1903), p. 267.

13 J . B. Kington , A Burgess's Letters, nos. 15 to 19; ··cosmo·· (J . M. Gutch), Twelve Letters on tire lmpedimems which obstruct tire trade and commerce of tire City and Port of Bristol (Bristol. 1823). nos. 13 to 16.

The City and its Government in the Eighteen-Tll'enties 9

sively doubled the capital to £600,000. Shipping immediately bene­fited but no t the return to shareholders. To assuage them and bolster its droo ping fi na nces, the Company raised the dues. This produced the worst o f both worlds- no t only were no dividends declared until 1823 but local traders using the po rt were a ffro nted. In · 1834 a publicist insisted that even a fte r pending reductio ns, Bristol's dock dues would exceed those o f Lo ndo n by 64t%, H ull by 55t%, Liver­pool by 41 1% and G lo ucester by 119%. 14 It was widely believed that the close connectio n between the Company and the Corporation milita ted against inte lligent ma nagement of the port. 1 s

Friend ly term s were maintained between the Corpo ratio n and the Bristol Turnpike Trust. This quasi-public bod y was funded by the levying of to lls to defray both the initial cost and subsequent upkeep of designated stre tches o f hig hway. Thi s at least ensured that main (or a rteria l) inter-city roads were passable, but because profi t was the moving force, the side roads suffered neglect. Obsession wi th fi nancia l gain also partly explained the parlo us state of many Trusts in the 1820's. Certainly the canals were entic ing traffic away, but less would have depar ted if mo re funds had been plo ughed into the Turnpike Trusts. U nder the Act of 59 G eo. Ill , c.95, the Bristo l Trust had by 1799 become the largest single authority in the country. The board consisted o f the justices of the peace for Somerset and Gloucestershire, local M .P.s, the entire Corpo ra tion and a number of individ uals na med by sta tute. By a stro ke of acumen, the Trust in 18 16 captured the services of Jo hn Lo udon McAda m as its general surveyor. His genius fo r roadma king brought constant dema nds upon him, imperilling perfo rmance of his Bristo l obliga tio ns. Cor­porati on nominees were implica ted in a plan to secure his dismissa l, and although it was thwarted , McAdam resigned in 1825. 16

Reformers found the select, heredita ry na ture of the Trust dis­pleasing, yet the Webbs, who were no admirers of such bodies, praised Bristo l as the best example of enlightened ad ministra tio n in this sphere. 1 7

It was not coincidental that the two bodies which the Corporation had occasion to regard as " insubordinate" were those over which it had voluntarily loosened its influence. To tackle the physical problems thrust on urban England by the upsurge in po pula tion, a flood of over two hundred improvement bodies came into existence before 1835. Orga nizing permuta tions of lighting, sewerage, the preser vatio n of law a nd order, paving and even, occasionally, the water supply, these unpretentious special boards vie with the muni­cipal corpo ra tions as the true precursor o f modern town government. Because of the circumstances which led to thei r a ppearance, they

14 Mercury, 16 August 1834, p. 2.· 1 5 Scc J . B. Kington, op. cit., nos. 7 to 14; J . M . Gutch, op. cit., nos. 17 to 2 1. 10 See Journal, 11 J une 1825, p. 3. 1 7 Sidncy and Beat riee Wcbb, English Local Government: Statutory Authorities/or

Special Purposes (London, 1922), p. 2 19.

10 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

never took root in the local government system, and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act permitted the reformed town councils to assume thei r functions if the improvement boards themselves con­sented . Bristo l's paving body was born out of the relucta nce of the Corporation to divert its own funds to such costly pursuits. The Corporation much preferred that a paving rate, which by the 1820's was producing £ 12,000 per a nnum, should finance the ci ty's funda­mental needs. After an earlier a bortive a ttempt, the Corporation in 1806 had ma naged "in th~ most indecent haste" to push through legisla tion establishing Paving Commissioners. The mere act of vesting in the Corporation the sole power of pitching and paving a nd of naming its members en bloc as commissioners under the statute was provocative: the situa tion was worsened by the imposi­tion of the ra te, which was construed as "a limitless local tax" . As it happened, service in a body which was politically nondescript and which could never rest on its laurels made little a ppeal to members of the Corporation. None served concurrently as a paving commis­sioner proper (as distinct from commissioner o f the Paving Act), and the Corporation's only regular involvement was when its alder­men as justices a nnually chose the twenty-one commissioners from among the 190 parochial nominees. 18 Given the political disposition and mood of the Corpora tion, it is possible that the justices selected a n undue proportion of Tories from the available pool. But as the most penetrating critic of the unreformed system, J . B. Kington, did no t make them a target, the commissioners must have confined them­selves to thei r proper business.

Local government in the era of the industrial revolution was in a genera l sense understanda bly preoccupied with the physical rather tha n the social. Of course the people benefi ted from better roads, better trading prospects and enfo rcement of the law, but as indivi­dua ls with social needs they attracted little attention from local government. The most notable exception to this position was care of the destitute, for which Bristol's Incorporation of the Poor was widely exto lled as a model. Its very forma tion in 1696 was

. something of a landmark, as it was the first local body in England to be directed by law to have its governing body based

l mainly on a city-wide popular election. 19 By 1833 the executive o fficers- the governor, his deputy and twelve assistants- were coping with five hundred poor in the workhouse, St. Peter's Hospi tal , a nd up to ten times tha t number on outdoor relief. This community charity was financed by a poor rate, which each Easter was certified by the magistrates and apportioned among the respective parishes. St. Peter's earned a warm commendation in the 1835 report of the Poor Law Commissioners as "one of the most cleanly and well­regulated establishments in England". The Corporation was not inclined to spend time and effort on matters rela ted to welfare of

' 8 See Minute Book of Paving Commissioners, no. 16 ( 1827- 1829), p. 288. 10 Sidney and Beat rice Webb, Statutory Authorities for Special Purposes. p. 11 5.

The City and its Government in the Eigh teen-Twenties ll

the poor, despit~ fact that the Mayor and his twelve aldermen were ex officio among the eighty guardians who elected the managing officers. Active service in the Incorporation was "arduous a nd often thankless" and conferred no political influence. Coercion in the shape of fines was needed to procure acceptance and performance of service. 20 Thus it was a lleged that the Select Vestries, which in practice controlled the selection of a majority of guardians, appointed those " who are obnoxious to them in their parishes, either on political or other grounds". 2 1 The aloofness of the Corporation is seen in the fact that between 1820 and 1835 not one of its members filled a ny principal position in the Incorporation of the Poor. In 1832 Thomas Stock, the Governor, became so exasperated with this shirking of duty that he issued a broadside declaring that members of the Corporation and vestrymen were eligible fo r office in the Incorporation of the Poor. In making the Whigs a present of the Incorporation, the Corporation and o ther Tory-dominated bodies brought trouble on themselves when disputes arose over such matters as paying the Bridewell keeper's salary or curbing the soari ng ra te. 22

Primarily because their various basic functions did no t overlap, there was no innate reason for the Corporation and the other public bodies to be at loggerheads. Nevertheless, the Corporation was j averse to any other body being completely out of its sphere of influence. In principle, the idea of a " superio r" body enjoying some measure of hegemony over its more specialized partners is not excep­tional. But the corollary is that the overseeing body should be consciously working for the city's welfare and progress. Was such a goal behind the procuring by the Corporat io n of sta tutory participation in the o ther bodies? The mainspring of the Corpora­tion 's policy in this respect can be considered under two head ings. Absolutely crucial to the Corporation was the question of " rights". As it assumed itself to be the foremost interested party with rega rds to developments in Bristol, it demanded the right to share in anything that was happening- including the sponsoring of legislation. Any Bills deemed to infringe its prerogatives were opposed , a lmost regardless of cost, if the promoters could not be persuaded to amend objectionable clauses. Between 1820 and 1835 it considered that only one of the twel ve Bills dealing wi th Bristol had no effect on its rights and privileges. Typical of its usual att itude was its objection in 1820 to a Bill amending the Paving Acts. The Corporation would not admit that the measure was necessary and declared that even if it had been , it should have emanated from the Mayor and a ldermen. 23

20 Sec E. E. Butcher (cd . ), Bristol Corporation of the Poor: Selected Records 1696- 1834 (Bristo l: Bristol Record Society, 1932), p. 34.

2 1 M. C. R: Bristol, p. 53. 2 2 See James Johnson, Transactions of the Corporation of the Poor during a period

of 126 years ... (Bristo l: n.p .. 1826), passim. 23 On legislat ion sec further G. W. A. Bush, The Old and the Neu·: The Corporation

of Bristol/820-5 1 (University of Bristo l: Ph. D. Disserta tion, 1965), pp. 95-98.

12 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

A related reason for the Corporation's stand was that it sternly opposed any moves by other bodies to inflate their own status, particularly with respect to the privileges they exercised. Secondly, because of the delicate balance of Bristol's parliamentary strength - informally the two seats were shared- the Corporation probably wanted friends rather than foes installed in other institutions capable of bringing influence to bear on elections. It should be stated that the Corporation's policy did not revolve around the desire to co­ordinate the efforts o f the various local bodies. A prospective or suspected injury to the Corporation's own interests precipitated an immediate response. but it was less alert to o ther develo pments which, whatever their consequences for the city, constituted no direct threat to the Corporation's position. In practical terms, the Corpora­tion did not claim that it was o mnipotent, or even that all other local bodies shouJd be subservient in the last resort. Nevertheless,

) it would seem that if the Corporation was really determined , it could get its way with the Select Vestries, the Turnpike Trust, the Merchant Venturers and the Dock Company. With regard to the Dock Company, not only did the Corporation nominate one third of its directors, but every member of the Corporation \\<as indivi­dually entitled to vote at general meetings. Even where its ability to intervene was limited, as with the Paving Commissioners and the Incorporation of the Poor, the Corporation was rarely beaten. For example, it contrived to prevail both in 1820, when the Incorpora­tion of the Poo r wanted to consolidate its regulations in an un­acceptable manner, and in 1830, when the Paving Commissioners sought to o btain a share of the proceeds o f the town dues. 24

Bristo l's local government system was not unique in structure or in function . As in other places where the municipal corporation was lethargic o r untrusted, the solution adopted by the inhabitants was to form special bodies to undertake particular function s. Southa mp­ton 's historian concluded about that city's very !>imilar arrangement tha t "at best the apparatus was a clumsy, cumbersome and creaking set of machinery". 25 By any standards there was in Bristo l too great a diffusion of responsibility, but this fragmentation had not resufted from a conscious policy.

A great deal o f the trouble was that no coherent guidelines for directing local government had yet emerged. Where legislation was needed , it was left to active groups in each community to sponsor the necessary measures. As long as enough of the ''respectable element" of each district involved themselves, some semblance of organization to meet local needs was ensured, for those in the fore­fro nt were often named as commissioners.

In Bristol there was a surfeit of applications to Parliament an

'4 See Proceedmg'> of the Common Council (P.C C.) 1827-1835, 9 J une I X30,

pp. 32 1-323 and Commiltcc Book 1819-1835.9 August 1820, pp. 43-45. ''A. T emple Palleroon (ed. ). A Se/e('fum from 1he Smuhamp1o11 C orporu1io11

Jouma/.1. 1815-35. and Borough Cmmul \/mules. 11135-47 (Southampton, 1965). p. n.

The City and its Government in the Eighteen-Tu·enties 13

average of o ne per year fro m 1800 until 1830. As well as the host of minor measures, there were a few principal Acts, notably the 1803 Dock Act, the 1806 Paving Act and the 1823 Incorporation of the Poor Act. Local Bill promotion could drastically deple te the purse: on the Town Dues Bills of 1824-1 825, the Corpo ration alone spent £ 1, 165. To red uce the outlay, parties sponsoring legi slatio n often combined to introduce a hybrid Bill, but this could be risky, as quite uncontentious pro posals were then tied to the o ther, perhaps un­rela ted and controversial; sections. For reasons already enumerated, a ll local legislation was eagerly studied by the Corpo ration. It was accused by Kington of abusing the procedure by making arbitrary objectio ns and by trying to increase its own powers:

The corporation has ever manifested a great love o f legislation, and has never failed to embrace a ll such opportunities of enlarging its powers a little, or of securing something previously open to dispute. 26

The justices in session made a superficia l perusal of the financial demands made on the ratepayers, but there was no externa l examina­tion wort hy of the name. The Incorporation of the Poor, the Paving Commissioners, the Dock Com pany, the Select Vestries, and the j ustices (fo r wa tch purposes) struck annual rates,27 a ll being assessed a nd collected in conjunction with the poor rate. The major reform effected in the mode of collection ca me in 1823, when deputed rate collectors superseded the churchwardens. Tolls a nd dues gathered by the Turnpike Trust , the Dock Company, the Merchant Venturers and the Corpo ratio n were immune from independent scrutiny, as were the revenues deri ved from the landed propert y of the last two bodies. Shortcomings in the rat ing system were q uite 1

noticeable. Ra tes were fixed o n a parochial basis, and because the parishes were numerous and often microscopic, rating discrepancies frequently occurred a mong neighbours. Only three times in eleven years after 1823 was more than 50% of the levy collected in the year in which it was imposed. Deferred o r evaded rates only added to ' the load on those who fa ith fully met thei r rates obligatio ns. 28 Many assessments were anoma lous, the survey of the rateable value of the City undertaken in 1823 being the first for over a century. Even this updating of the rating register did no t obviate charges that parish officers were prone to apply their own highly irregular rating scales. Furthermore, because of the illogical, o utmoded bo unda ries,' liability for some ra tes could be avoided simply by shifting residence, a quarter of a mile or so. As an example, the Municipal Corpora­tio ns Commissio ners cited Bedminster, where 60% of the population

20 J. B. Kington. A Burgess 's Letters , p. 10. 21 From 1832 an a nnual compensation rate was levied to meet the claims on the

city for damage caused by the riots o f October 183 1. 2 8 See M.C.R: Bristol, pp. 38-39.

14 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

was untouched by the harbo ur ra te. According to Kington, who used figures very precisely, Bristol's local taxa tion in 1833 amo unted to £ I 00,000,29 broken down as follows :

Poor ra te Compensation rate Paving rate Watch rate Harbour rate Church rate Dock dues Cranage, etc., dues Town and Mayor's dues Other port fees Miscella neous fees

£30,000 10,000 10,000 4,500 2,400 2,000

23,800 4,000 2,800 1,500 9,000

The total was suffic iently large to provo ke concern a bo ut its magni­tude. Alarm among ratepayers was expressed mo re about the size of the impost than about suspected waste or misspending.

Where ratepayers and indeed the citizens a t large were treated shabbily was in their exclusio n from invo lvement in public affairs. To many it seemed that the chosen few had a rrogated to them­selves the right to determine the path tha t the city would take. The Corpo ratio n, the Society of Mercha nt Venturers and the Select Vestries (except fo r the churchwa rdens) were who lly and un­asha medly select. The Dock Company and the Turnpike Trustees were in a similar category, th ough part of their governing boards was no minated by o ther bodies. Only with the Incorporation o f the Poo r and the Paving Commi ssio ners did the citizens get a meaningful o ppo rtunity to p lay a part in selectio n, yet even this was circumscribed in that the two-stage process conferred the fin al right of selectio n o n others. So the average Bristolian had no chance of breaking into the magic circle o f those who possessed power.

Despite its unrepresenta ti ve nature, the system had not provoked a gro undswell of discontent. As fa r as can be judged , among the masses there was indifference a nd a mo ng the lower middle classes o nly desulto ry interest in the business o f local government. There were four principal newspapers published week ly- the Journal (T ory) a nd the Mirror (T ory), the Gazette (Whig) and the Mercury (Radical)-but no ne a llocated much coverage to local matters. For instance, with a sin gle exception no correspondence was published about the natio na l reform of the corpo rations. What­ever o ther explana tions about competing news and limitations o f space can be advanced fo r this situation, this lack o f local content does seem to mirror accurately popular feeling. Those in the van­gua rd of movements to open o r liberalize the Corpo ration were almost invaria bly a handful of po liticall y-acti ve middle-class citizens,

>• J. B. Kington. op. cit .. pp. 289-290.

The City and its Got•emment in the Eighteen-Tll'enties 15

who would no t acknowledge that the members of the Corporation were their betters. So this almost unrelieved lack of popular partici­pation did not go against the grain . T o the bulk of the po pulation it was ei ther immaterial o r only a minor irrita tion: to onl) a few was it a grievo us o ffence against propriety.

By current sta ndards there seems to have been a n abundance of bodies involved in some aspect o f local public affairs. In addition to those leading instituti ons already mentioned . there were o thers which in a broad sense could be bracketed with them as local bodies. Trustees managed Bristol Bridge, the building of the new gaol, and, after 1829, the building of the cattle market. The Bristol Royal Infirmary o btained its funds from subscription , and in 1832 pressure on its wards was eased with the opening of the General Hospita l. These two institutio ns were exa mples of the great tradition of voluntary associations. Gas came to town , but its development often seemed subo rdinated to the rivalry between the Coal Gas Company and that utilizing o il. Consumers were little comforted to learn in 1833 that .. o ther towns are supplied with gas at half the cost of Bristol"'.30 Water was likewise neither abundant no r cheap, at least for the householder. As late as 1850 " Bristol was wor e supplied \o\ith ""atcr than any g reat city of England". 31 but the lack of wi ll implied must no t be attributed to the Bristo l Waterworks Company. founded fo ur years previously.

From a modern standpoint. the arrangements for Bristo l's local ' government arc certainly untidy, to put it no stro nger . Yet the constant danger in appraising the unreformed system is of using hindsigh t. and it must be remembered tha t the then prevailing con- I ceptions of local government were narrow, and found their expres-

1 sion in a piecemeal approach towards problems. Furthermore, in Bristo l in particular. the Corpora tion was the only bod y so con­stituted as to undertake any co-ordination of functio ns or to foster a broadened perspective a mo ng the vario us local bodies, but for reasons to be examined later, its standing with the populace was poor. And for all the proliferation of authorities. there were still gaps in responsibility, as for example. the provision of an efficient police force. Unpro tected Bedmi nster would have welcomed even an inefficient one. Yet for all the acknowledged defects of the un­reformcd system. the worst evi ls were somehow contained . Bristol's tolerance of rather chaotic arrangements and the often ineffectual services that were provtded is not really surprising.

This is no t to excuse the system entirely. The a reas in which the Corporation and the Paving Commissioners operated were out-

"Joumal, 2 November Ili33, p. 3. 11 G. T. Cla rk. Report 10 rhe General Board of Healrh on a Prl'liminary Enq111ry

mro rhl' Se~t<•rage. Dra11111!(e. and Supply or Warer and rhe Samwry Condirion or rhe lnlwhiumr1 of rhe Cur and Cmmry of Bri.11ol (London· ll .M.S.O .. 1!150). p. I 10. Sec abo John Lattmcr. /he 4nnal.\ of Brisrol 111 rhe Ninereenrh Cemun (Bmtol. HH!7). pp 96 and 2H0-2K I

16 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

moded , a nd the two bodies should have striven to adjust their boundaries, regardless of the risk of incurring cha rges of aggrandize­ment. It was absurd that districts like Clifton a nd Bedminster, in rea lity integra l parts of the city, should be outside it for most purposes but inside for a few. As has been implied, certain features of the financia l operations of the various bodies were open to severe criticism. Sizeable amounts of uncollected rates were the no rm, a nd it was a lleged tha t numerous residents of St. Philip and Jacob With­out favoured the district because it was not subject to city rating. Casually-audited accounts ';Y hich in the case of the Corporation a nd the Select Vestries were never published did no t instil confidence that rates and dues were being spent wisely and properly applied. There is little justification for asserting that misused funds were the reason for keeping the public at bay, but the prevailing obsession with exclusiveness only heightened suspicions that there was plenty being hidden from the public gaze. This partly explains why a larger number of men of a higher calibre did not grace the ranks of local bodies-either their talents were spurned or they fou nd service in such cliques too odious. Notions of profit a nd loss loomed very large in the delibera tions of many bodies. While not blatantly asking what Bristol could do for them, their moving spirit was ha rdly devotion to the concept of selfless service for the good of Bristol. The Dock Company could be cited as an example here, but even a t the opposite end of the scale, the Incorpora tion of the Poor, probably the most altruistic of a ll the local bodie , knew full well that promotion of " the public good " , as then defined , d id not carry its own rewards.

Such imperfect a rrangements coped with needs until their social and economic environment came under the brutal stress of new

. industrial forces. In the meantime, the incentive a nd will to reform was weak. Local bodies tended to fear their own demise more than the inabi lity to cope effectively with their duties. Exemption from the Poor Law Act was secured by the Incor poration of the Poor in 1834, perhaps justifiabl y; strenuous resistance did not avai l the Pavi ng Commissioners, whose functions were assumed by the Council in 185 1. Centra l government was a t this stage unlikely to be the agent o f radical change. Its vision was occupied mainly by law and o rder and there was no written body of knowledge to con­sult o r a ny central department of state to issue white papers or advice. With only a very small salaried execut ive, it was imprac­ticable to expect a single group of busy merchants and men like them

l to superintend the whole of Bri stol's public affairs. Expediency dema nded that the burden be parcelled out and shared, not aggre­gated. Bristo l did, it is true, escape the most dire consequences of the industrial revolution, but its economic and social consequence aggravated the city's problems, making a radical a ttack on them imperative and- in the absence of local government reform­unlikely.

C HAPTE R TWO

THE STRUCTURE AND POLITI C S OF THE CO RPORATIO N

The officia l title o f the municipal corporation was "the Mayor, Burgesses and Commo nalty of the City of Bristo l". It governing body, the Commo n Council , comprised the mayor, twelve aldermen l a nd thirty common councillors, o f whom two newcomers were usually sheriffs. The remaining element of the Corpo ration, the burgesses or freemen, had lo ng since been excluded from any active participatio n in deci ion-making. Apart from those matters fal ling wi thin the competence of magistrates, a nd the governing of certain charities by the Mayor and aldermen , authority was vested in the Commo n Council. 1

Numerous royal cha rters had conferred o n the governing body its rights and then a pparently widened them. Edward Ill's 1373 charter had made Bristol a separate county and ratified the Commo n Council. On a much less ancient in strument, the charter o f Anne issued in 1710, the Corpo ra tion based it s a uthority to govern . During the eighteenth century a number of local Acts were promoted , evidently designed either to extend speci fic powers o r to shore up o therwise shaky prescriptive titles. 2 Few were disposed to impugn the Corporati on's legal justifica tio n of its positio n. A local Tory notable, Henry Bush, did publish in 1825 a series o f pamphle ts c ritically analysing the charters, 3 but no one bothered to pursue this issue at the hearings of the Municipal Corpo ratio ns Commissio ners in 1833.

Only 755 acres fell wi thin the Corporation 's jurisdiction. A central cluster of twelve minute parishes was ringed by seven of mo re respect­able size, and to these had been added a strip a butting the floating ha rbo ur and the "isla nd" formed by the digging of the new cut of the Avon in 1805. On water, the Corporatio n was monarch of a ll it surveyed from the Avo n a t Hanham Mills to Weston-super-Mare. within the nearer half of the Bristol Channel.

1 The terms .. member of the Corporation .. a nd .. Common Councillo r .. will be u'eatcd as synonymous. as indicating a member of the governing body. all ho ugh the former strictly includes freemen and the laller does not dis tinguish the gra da tions within the Corporation.

2 On the question of cha rters see R. C. Latham, Brisrol Charters 1509- 1899 (Bristo l: Bristol Record Society. 1947).

3 H. Bush, .. An Account of the Municipal Government and Local lns titut ions of Bristol .. ( 1825). For Bush's involvement, see infra, p. 50.

18 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

Bristol ranked as the second corporat ion in the kingdom by virtue of its 5,000 members. Fewer than I o 0 had a nything but a no minal associa tion. Co-optio n was the method of filling vacancies on the Council , a practice fo llowed by 186 of the 237 corpo rations recog­nized by the Municipal Corpo ratio ns Commission .4 O nce admitted , the member followed a well-trodden pa th- fro m sheriff to common councillo r and thence, for the successful, to Mayor and alderman. Whereas the specific appointments of Mayor a nd sheriff were of a year's duration, the two classes--common counci llor and alderma n

njoyed life tenure. The Corpo rat ion 's practice of li fe service was very typical, since 120 of the 180 corporations with governing councils confo rmed to this pattern. 5

Every 15 September the incoming Mayor was appo inted. Mayors were a lmost invariabl y chosen fro m a mo ng the commo n councillo rs, the average· interval between selection to Common Council and selection as Mayor being seven years. One nominatio n each was a llowed to the Mayor, the aldermen and the common councillors, but on eleven occasio ns between 1820 and 1835 the retiring Mayor's no minee was chosen. Pa rt icipation in the selection in Bristol was less restric tive than in Southa mpton, where o nly the Mayor and the aldermen cast vo tes. Bo th re-elections a nd genuine contests were frowned upon . Only for 1820 were figures recorded when the three nominees obtained respectively sixteen, e ight and two votes. It was rumoured that both the 1825 and 1826 electio ns were de termined by a solita ry vote. Any Mayor-elect who was unwilling to enter office was subject to a £500 fine, but there was the alternative of employing a proxy, as happened in 1825 and 1830.

The mayoral ty was a b lend of business a nd pleasure. Wining and dining, ho b-nobbing with visi ting celebrities, ex officio membership of a number of o rga nizat ions a nd eleva tion to a lderma nic sta tus were a mong the perquisites. T o defray o utgoings, the Mayor was entitled to the to ll o n shipping known as "Mayor's Dues". These were supplemented to make up the agreed stipend , which was £2,500 until 1825, when it was red uced to £2,000. A n acute sho rtage of funds in 1833 caused a further reduction to£ I ,604. Only a parsimonious Mayor found himself in pocket when he gave up office. If do nning the mayoral rega lia was expensive, the duties were multi fario us. As titula r head o f the Corpo ra tio n, the Mayor was insta lled in the Mayor's (Ma nsion) Ho use. As well as chairing Commo n Council meeti ngs, he was chief magistrate, presid ing over the Quarter Sessio ns. He wa s ex officio a Dock Company di rector and a Guardian of the Poor. Within the Corporation, no vita l committee was without the Mayor, a nd o f the thirty-seven specia l committees a ppointed in the period 1820- 1835, the Mayor was a member of

4 M .C. R: General. p . 94. The a ldermen. in collaboration with the Mayor. reserved to thcmselve~ the righ t to select their Court.

5 Sidney and Beat rice .Wcbb, The Manor and 1he Borough. Pt. I, p. 368.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 19

twenty-six. Considered as a whole, the mayors were more often Anglican Tories than were the o ther members of the Corporation. They were also younger (on average forty-nine years), not only because the job needed stamina , but because of the policy of selecting the most senior member of the Corporation who was not an aldet­man and who had not previously occupied the o ffice of Mayor. Mayors were more than imposing figureheads, even though they often seemed to defer to the a ldermen. It was not unusual for mayors to figure prominently in debates or to table motions. Potentiall y the office carried much influence: to wha t degree it was exercised depended on personal traits, the exigencies of the case and rela tions with a few key aldermen.

Technically, the dozen a ldermen were elected during "good behaviour". This was a eu phemism fo r life tenure. Promotion to aldermanic stat us normally came after between fi ve and fifteen years' membership of the Corporation. Those who were singled out ei ther drew attention to themselves by their diligence, or could thank their seniority. Vacancies were promptly filled. The compara tive youth ful­ness of the eleven chosen between 1820 and 1835 1owered the average age of the group from sixty-one to some fift y-five years. Aldermen licensed taverns, struck rates, supervised wards and the police fo rce, governed cha rities and served en bloc on m ore than ha lf the Corporation's special committees. They quite frequently served as magistra tes in neighbouring counties. The position of a lderman, if undertaken conscien tiously, was no sinecure. In spite of this, no instance of refusal to serve was known, but resignations were regular. Seven depa rted in this way- perhaps gently edged out by their brethren- a nd five died in office. Evan Baillie's le tter of resignation in 182 1 stressed his " o ld age and infirmity", 6 but possibly the Common Council, unwilling to to lerate his domici le in Inverness any longer, itself prompted Baill ie's decision . According to the Webbs, Bristol witnessed the "progressive elevation of the Mayor and a ldermen" 7 within the Corporation. This assertion is substan­tiated by an analysis of religious and po litical affiliations. Among the aldermen, Whigs prevailed six to four in 1820, but with only Tories fillin g replacements, the Whig element was gradually extin­guished . Likewise, over the whole period studied, Anglicans ac­counted for 85% of the aldermen. Thus political and religious trends in the Common Council were intensified among the a ldermen. Aldermanic will had its way in most facets o f the Corporation 's life, either openly or by string pulling and there is evidence in the minutes that they met as a court or Committee of Aldermen. The Webbs came to the conclusion that the City was ruled by the aldermen , not the Common Council. 8 Modern students o f local government would probably identify the aldermen as part of '' the power elite".

• Letter from E. Baillie, 6 April 1821: Town Clerk 's Correspondence 1821. 1 Sidncy and Beat rice Web b. The Manor and the Borough. Pt. 11. p. 45 1. " Ibid., p. 465.

20 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

The thirty common councillors formed a pool from which the important posts were filled . Tenure was for life, and refusals to serve were quite common. A fine of £300 was invariably imposed on those who refused to serve, and between 1820 and 1835 seven nominees declined. Part of the explanation may have been political- on five of the seven occasions the Corporation majority and the nominee were of opposing political allegiance. Common councillors were a subordinate part of the governing body- their nominees fo r Mayor were rarely successful and only as auditors of the accounts were they appointed ex officio to any committee. Constitutionall y the thirty common councillors were distinguished from the Mayor and the aldermen, but in fact they never met o r acted in isolation.

In so far as any new member of the Corporation had to undergo a test of fitness, it was as a sheriff. Of the sheriffs in the period 1820-1 835, 90% had joined the Corporation less than a year pre­viously. A fine of £300 seems to have curbed refusals to serve, although proxies were now and then employed, and eight sheriffs retained their posts for a succeeding year. The sheriff presided over the Tolzey Court and superintended bo th Newgate gaol and the Bridewell house o f correction. At parliamentary elections they returned the results and strove to preserve decorum a t what was habitually a boisterous occasion.9 To assist them they had an under­sheriff, who had legal training, and a staff of serjeants and yeomen. In limited respects they were deputy-mayors, and they were obliged to provide a series of dinners. Expenses were partly defrayed by an a llowance, nomina lly £630 until 1824 and thereafter £400. There must have been some explanation for the incompatibility between the responsible nature of the tasks and the inexperience and relative youthfulness of most sheriffs. Perhaps the intention was to blood the novice councillor, municipally speaking. The duties were genuine enough, and perhaps only the novice members could be persuaded to bear them.

Of a rather special status were the Recorder and the Lord High Steward . Lo rd Grenville, sometime Whig Leader of the Upper House, held the latter position fo r almost the whole of the period reviewed. Association with a noble family was a mark of prestige, and the annual price- a butt of sherry- for having "an official representative in the House of Peers" was not begrudged. More significant in the hiera rchy was the Recorder, who was senior alder­ma n and presiding judge in the Court of G aol Delivery. His remuneration was one hundred guineas and a hogshead of sherry. Although on occasions he acted as legal adviser, the Recorder never attended Com mon Council meetings. Among the leading lega l figures chosen to serve the Corporation in this office were Sir Robert Gifford ( 18 18-1 826), Atto rney General; Sir John Copley (later Lord Lyndhurst) ( 1826- 1827); a nd the ultra-T ory individua list , Sir Charles

" See for exa mple Journal, 10 J une 1826. p. 3 a nd 15 December 1832, p. 4.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 2 1

Wet herell ( 1827-1 835), d iehard o pponent of parlia mentary a nd municipal reform. 10

Completing the Corporat io n 's componen ts were the freemen. In ad missio n q ua lificatio ns Bris to l was rat her liberal, w hen it is remembered that a lmost ha lf the corpo ra tions, moved by avarice, poli tics or p ride, admitted freemen only by purchase or by gift. In Bristol apprenticeship, being born to a freeman, o r marrying a free­man 's widow or daughter were the usual doors of entry. In addi tion, ten personages who m the Corpo ratio n deemed both famous and of friendly po litical o utl ook were made ho no ra ry freemen. Those who d id no t otherwise quali fy could acquire freedo m by purchase, the scaled fines sta rting with yeomen ( twelve guineas) and ending with merchants (fi fty guineas a nd upwards). Fo r no n-free prospective Common Councillors the scale was ma nipula ted to give them special preference. With its ever-deple ted fin a nces, the Corporatio n wel­comed the income from fines, rebuffi ng on ly one petition, that of James Acland, who wi th his radical broadsheet, Bristolian, annoyed the Corpora t ion in the la te 1820's. 1 1 F ines produced for the Corporation a n average of£ 152 per annum.

Freemen were exempt from both Bristo l a nd Liverpool town dues, were el igible for numero us charities, and were entitled to vote for the two local Members of Parliamen t, a privi lege which could be lucra tive. 1 2 O n average, 2 19 freemen were ind ucted into the Corpora­tion each year, 90% coming fro m mass admissions which preceded each electio n. This practice reached its zenith in 1830 when the fervour of pend ing parliamentary reform led to the swellin g of the freemen 's ro ll by 1,86 1 new na mes. The po litical parties ra ther than the Corpora tion were the instigato rs here. In fact, a fte r the rio ts o f 183 1 tho ught was given to schemes such as admitting a ll " inhabi­tant ho useho lders" a t an annual court , but no thing came of this.

The dominant cha racte ristic o f the Corpo ratio n was the stabili ty of its personnel. T he average length of membership of the governing body exceeded twenty years. Of the sixty-nine people involved , forty­one were curren tly members of the Corporation when it was dis­solved in 1835, seventeen had d ied in office a nd eleven (or 16%) had resigned for o ne reason or a no ther. G iven that the active strengt h of the governing bod y fluctua ted between twenty-seven and thi rty-five, it is puzzling that the nominal complement was per­petually two o r th ree below the maximum . Average attendance was twenty-four. Cont inuity o f membership was ensured, but no t, apparent ly, d iligence in a ttenda nce.

Its array of charters a nd prescripti ve titles gave the Corporatio n a prerogative a nd status which seemed in vulnerable, and trade ra ther than legal rights was the subject of the majority of the a ttacks

10 See Margarcl Fcdclcn, 8ris10/ Bypaths (Bristol, n.d .), pp. 77-8 1 and injra, pp. 59-60.

1 1 lnjra, pp. 55-58. '

7 Scc Reporr oj Select Committee on Bribery. q. 6426, H.C., 1835 (547). VIII.

22 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

directed against it. Occasionally someone with a little knowledge of constitutional law challenged the very foundation of the Corpora­tion's legal position, but overall there was little erosion of its frame­work of rights. There were a number of important challenges, and when we examine these it is as well to remember the Webbs' dictum about the study of local government between 1689 and 1835: "what is important is what actually existed, not what subsequent lawyers even tually decide ought to have existed". 13

Whether Henry Bush inspired John Gutch ("Cosmo"), the editor of the Journal, or vice versa is now an insoluble question. Gutch came to the fore in 1823-1825 during the agitation to have the municipal port dues reduced o r repealed. 14 The series of analytical let ters he wrote and published no t only provided intellectual content for the movement against the dues, but threw into relief the issue of the legality of the power exercised by the Corporation. As has already been noted, Bush achieved local fame in 1825 with his manuscript on what he called "Bristol institutions". He created more of a furore in 1828, when as a non-free merchant he was success­fully prosecuted by the Corporation for refusal to pay town dues. As both Bush and Gutch were middle-class T ories, the assertion that they conspired , o r at least acted in liaison, is plausible. Gutch was as articulate as Bush in his articles, which appeared in the Journal between 17 September and 19 November 1825 under the collective heading, "The Present Mode of Election of the Mayor, Sheriffs and Common Council ... considered". 1 5 His analysis of the various instruments of authority probably stemmed from a letter by " Pierre" the previous year. Evidently the 17 10 charter prohibited sheriffs from serving twice within three years and stipulated that the Common Council 's complement of forty-three should be inclusive of the Town C lerk. 16 Both of these were being violated in 1825.

Point by point, clause by clause, Gutch inspected the stack of documents, assuming that the charter of 47 Edward Ill of 1373 granted the original rights. He demonstrated that the power of elect­ing the Common Council and the power of assenting to taxation, rested with the inhabitants. Subsequent charters could augment, but not ann ul , such rights. At pains to dissociate himself from any Radical undercurrents, Gutch stressed that even for the staunchest Tory no laws are so binding or immutable that they ought for eternity to remain inviolate. Nevertheless, no public body, whatever it political complexion, was entitled to flout legally-enacted charters. He advocated that the burgesses, in his mind the inhabita nt house­holders, sho uld regain the privi leges so deviously filched from them.

Having prepared the ground, Gutch and his confederates put their case to the test. By spreading rumours about their design, they

1 J Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The Manor and rhe Borough, Pt. I, p. 274. 14 /njra. 47-49. " They were la ter reprinted in Cosmo ·s Lellers. op. c it. 10 Journal. 6 ovember 1824. p. 3.

The S tructure and Politics of the Corporation 23

ensured a crowded and expectant audience in the Guildhall on 29 November 1825 for the traditional swearing-in of sheriffs and Mayor. Part way through the usually staid proceedings, a prominent local solicitor, Henry Ball, specially retained for the purpose, rose to his feet and protested against the mode of elect ing o fficers by exclusion of the burgesses. The Town C lerk, Ebenezer Ludlow, tried to stifle the interjection. His ignorance of crowd psychology led him in a panic to threa ten with custody any burgess who used his arms, ha nds o r voice to endorse Ball 's conduct. 1 7

It was no t an ticipated by those instigatin g this sensational episode that the Corporation would meekly capitulate. The intervention was to give grounds fo r filing a writ of quo warranto in the Court o f King's Bench. If granted , this would have compelled the persons involved to show by what warrant the offices were held. After numerous deferments, the case that the sheriffs were doubly dis­qualified was fi na lly heard a nd j udgment given in favour of the defending Corporation.' 6 Its triumph was tempered : costs were no t gran ted and the plaintiffs were given a rule permitting them to peruse relevant a nd hitherto inaccessible documents. Gutch a nd his a llies were pragmatic enough to real ize that, whatever the intrinsic merits oftheir case, an entrenched and venerable Corporation was not going to be dislodged by a court faced only with a maze of complicated and sometimes contradictory charters.

J ohn Barnett Kington 's o ffensive in 1833 was a lso couched in the context of declining trade. 19 Under the nom-de-plume of "A Bur­gess", Kington, a local Whig accountant a nd no rabid party man , published during the space of a year in the Mercury a series of thirty articles which developed the theme that closed bodies were respon­sible for the ruinous effect of port dues. 2 0 This particula r cha rge will be considered in the next chapter. Kington, unlike Bush, did not examine minutely the sources of corporate a uthority: he held as a premise that the self-elective principle was the progenitor of all o ther evils, 2 1 and he concentrated on one kind of effect. His wordy screeds harped on the unconstitutiona l nature of select bodies; on their tendency to corruption; on their fai lure to impose any test of fitness for office a nd of their inabili ty to reform themselves. Although they were the product of careful calcula tions and research, the Letters did no t trigger off any active reform movement. They may have intensified the pressure on a Corporation which al ready felt itself beleaguered. Kington' s contribution was a planned assault on a broad front , as for example when he censured the accretion

17 See Mercury and Journal, 3 November 1825, p. 3. 18 Jouma/, 13 May 1826, p. 3. 19 lnj ra, pp. 50-5 1. 20 Only five of the letters were addressed to the Corporatio n; the o the r major objects

of scrutiny being the Dock Company (8 leuers), Merchant Venturers (5), and the West India " monopolists" (5). The letters, together with material on municipal refo rm. were pu blished collectively in 1836. See injra, pp. 50-51.

21 J. B. Kington, A Burgess's Leuers, leu er 2, p. 7.

24 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

of power by the Corporation during the previo us century while it disclaimed responsibility for Bristo l affairs. The most o bjective of the contemporary press, the Mirror, lauded Kington 's work as " replete with logical inferences, and o ne in which industry and ta lent contend fo r superiority". 22 There is considera ble similarity between Kington 's conclusions and those la ter contained in the Municipal Corporations Report. [t is no t too rash to assume that Kington 's wo rks were a t least in some degree utilized by the hard-pressed commissioners. His case was difficult to rebut and further eroded any sympathy for the Corpo ratio n which lingered a mong uncom­mitted citizens. · Specula tion abo ut the link between a ttacks o n the Corpo ration 's

select nature and the backgro und of its members is intriguing, but not very profitable. Almost certainly Kington, G utch and others of similar o utlook disappro ved o f the na rrow social stra ta fro m which members o f the Corpo ra tion were usua ll y drawn. They a rgued that men o f merit did not necessa rily belo ng to o ne rel igio n, live wi thin walking dista nce of each o ther, o r come fro m a few interlocking family and business g ro ups. However, they did no t blame the social bala nce in the Corpo ra tio n fo r its sho rtcomings. The real trouble was the principle o f self-electio n, and if popula r cho ice led to the sa me kind o f person fillin g the Corpo rat ion, Kington a nd his suppo rters would have ceased their agita tio n.

Whatever crite ri on is employed , the members o f the Corpo ratio n clustered together as a compact gro up. Bearing in mind the sources o f Bristo l's prosperity, it is no t surprising that substa ntial merchants,

) men of business and commerce sho uld be the Corporation 's back­bone. Traditionally the Tories' a im was to implicate those of leading sta tio n a nd wealth in the administra tio n of Bristo l's a ffai rs. After they wrested contro l fro m the Whigs in 18 12, they brought in such citizens as were willing to be recruited . Yet a ffluence by itself was no t sufficient. They also required acceptable political, social, reli­gio us a nd family backgro unds. Vacancies were not exclusively fi lled

I by Anglican T o ries, a ltho ug h by the mid- 1820's such men pre­do minated . Measured in te rms of occupa tio n, mercha nts were the most numero us (37° 0 ) : in conj unctio n with those enjoying an inde-pendent income they filled half the places.23 Ma nufacturers (30%) were the second-larges t ca tegory, fa r outweighing ba nkers (9%). tho ugh ma ny members of the Corpo ra tio n held directo rships of banks. The paucity o f pro fessional men and the persistent presence o f the West India interes t were o ther nota ble cha racteristics. Only fi ve members o f the Corpora tio n actua ll y o wned pla ntations, but for another fo urteen their sugar refinin g o r merchandizing depended o n the West Indies. Ano ther figure is equally revea ling- nearly half

H Mirror. 14 June 1834. p. 3. ~·'The analysis of occupations is based on information in Matt/reil'S 's Directories

and various Poll Books.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 25 .

the Common Councillors were either sugar refiners or engaged in I some aspect of brewing or distilling. Was this undue proportion simply a coincidence, or did it reflect some attempt to manipulate corporate affai rs in the in terests of business?

Thieves were not acceptable, but poor men a nd beggar men were to be found sitting uneasily in plush Corporation chairs among those who today would be classed as mjllionaires. 2 4 One writer alleged tha t at an earlier stage about one-sixth of the Corporation was bank­rupt , paying about five shillings in the pound . 2 5 During the fifteen years studied, four members of the Corporation- H ugh Danson, Sir Richard Vaughan , Samuel Henderson and Matthew Brickdale, the former M.P.-co uld no t meet their creditors, and the assets of another four were on death worth barely one hundred pounds. On the other ha nd, six members of the Corporation at their decease had estates va lued at more than £ 100,000. Thomas Daniel , the grey I eminence, left £200,000 in 1854. With estates of between £2,000 and \>.

£20,000, most members were in comfortable circumstances, and a .\ quarter- predominantly a ssocia ted with West India trade- had amassed fortunes in excess of £30,000. Entry into the Corporation did not faci litate moneymaking. According to one Bristolian who declined such an invitation, it was common knowledge that unless his fortune had a lready been made, a man who devoted himself to public life was certain never to join those who amassed wealth. 26

One-third of the Corpora tion in 1820 still consisted of Unitarians and o ther Dissenters, a relic from the end of the previous century when the Lewin 's Mead Unitaria n congregation included, with one exception, the entire a ldermanic bench. '"The Mayor's nest" was an apt name for the church itself. 2 7 Taking advantage of legisla tion sanctioning occasiona l conformity, Dissenters had contro lled the Corporation . 28 Once the Tories were in the ascenda ncy, the ten­dencies for Tories to be Anglicans and Whigs Dissenters had its inevitable consequences. As in Coventry,29 the Dissenters almost vanished . Overall , 70% of the Corporation were Anglicans, a nd this predominance became more prono unced as time passed . There was even one case of individual conversion, for William lnman who joined as a Unitarian Whig in 1805, twenty-three years later changed his allegiance and became a member of both the Established Church and the "established" political party. Needless to say, Cat holic

24 The calculation of wea lth is taken from esta tes registered in the Adrnon & Proba te Act books a nd in the Wills Proved series in Somerset House. Lo ndon.

"') B J. B. Kingto n, A Burgess·s Letters, p. 16. 26 Bristol Times & Mirror, 2 April 1888, p. 5. 2

' Raymond V. Ho lt , i'he Unitarian Conln bution to Social Progress in England (London, 1938), p. 240.

28 Ursula Henriqucs, Religious Toleration in England 1787-1833 ( London, 1961 ). p. 15.

29 Sec S. E. Kerri son, Coventry and the Munic ipa l Corporations Act, 1835 (University o f Birmingha m: M.A. Thesis, 1939), p. 224.

26 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

emancipation introduced no leavening of "Romish adherents' ' into the ranks. 30

Edmund Burke, who was so closely associated with the city, may well have had Bristol in mind when he wrote in 1791 that

corporations, which have a perpetual succession and an hereditary noblesse, which themselves exist by succession, are the true guardians of monarchical succession. 31

Bristol was not entirely the domain of an oligarchic family compact: the 1812 changeover to Tory control ensured that. Nevertheless, "Corporation" families were a common feature. Fifteen members had fathers who served prior to 1820, and another two sets of father and son sat concurrently. At one point in the late 1820's five pairs of brothers sat simultaneously. Over one-third of the members of the Corporation in the period 1820-1835 had close relative<; (from the preceding two generations) antecedent to them on the municipal body. There were lateral as well as generationallinks. William Fripp the younger and Thomas Daniel, the most powerful combination in this period, were connected by marriage to Stephen and John Cave and Christopher Georgc respectively. Acquaintance in other spheres often blossomed into social friendship. Deeply-implanted traditions were shattered by the reform of 1835, and in a brief space of time many names which had been almost synonymous with the Corpora­tion vanished from the lists.

Members of the Corporation resided principally in Clifton and Redland, in the area adjacent to the Ancient City and Stokes Croft, or in the northern outskirts, in that order of preference. 32 This made many technically non-resident, but only a mere handful lived in I distant parts. Fashionable Clifton and its eastern environs attracted many into its crescents, squares and terraces. The fact that 50"'o of the members of the Corporation changed their abode during the period 1820-1835 is a mark of their affluence, as well as evidence of new building developments. Usually five or six members occupied Berkeley Square mansions, another three or four lived in Park Street, while Charles Pinney, Richard Bright and William Weare lived in Great George Street. These residential habits are further

\ evidence of the tightly-knit circle inside which members of the Corporation lived, worked and worshipped.

lt might have been expected, assuming normal mortality, that a body elected for life would be top heavy with elderly gentlemen. In fact , this was not so. Five or six members were over eighty at any one time and took little part, but there was a vigorous group in

10 Religio us affiliation is determined from a variety or ~ources, but principally fro m new~paper reports, parish record~ and Le\\m 's Mead archives.

11 Cited in Sidney and Beatrice Webb, SwtutmT Autlwfllll'.\ /or Special Purposes. p. 375.

u Calculated from mfo rmat1on 111 Mauhe11 .1 '.1 Dm•uoru'.\ a nd Poll Book s.

The S tructure and Politics of the Corporation 27

their forties.33 Resignation and death held the average age down ( to about fifty-five: tha t of the active section was substantially lower (below fifty). Three of the most influential individua ls- Fripp the younger, A bra ham Hilhouse and Charles Walker- were only in their early fo rt ies in 1827. On the o ther hand, the hitherto popular practice of admitting in their twenties the sons ofleading citizens was virtually discontinued. Thus, in the period being studied the Corpora tion was in thi s respect a reasonably balanced cross-section of adult ma le society. J .... + l<l"k v~t~+ t lur " ~.,,..,.., l:,.,tz1,.-J

Civic affairs were no t used as a platform from which to a tta in general eminence: rather the converse. Men were selected for the Corpora ti on because they had a lready attained success (or were assured of it) and came from the " right and respectable" o rders of local society. In the religious, cultural , philanthropic and commercial bodies which abounded in Bristol, the member of the Corporation was ubiquitous, untiring and ever ready to lend his talents. 34 Most committees and boards of directors contained at least fi ve Common Councillors. They were prominent in new committees. Five served on the fou ndation committee for the relief of distressed Irish peasantry ( 1822), six on that for the prevention a nd discovery of burglaries ( 1814) and nine as trustees of the Clifton Suspension Bridge ( 1830). Almost ha lf had held the presidency in one of the four societies dedica ted to perpetuating the memory of that great charitable benefacto r of the eighteenth century, Edward Colston, and raising money to continue his work. Another sponsor of sump­tuous a nnual dinners- the Society of St. Stephen's Ringers35- also a ppealed to a sprinkling of members of the Corporation, more, it must be hastened to add, for the prestige attendant on being warden or president than for helping to peal the bells. Only a bout/ a dozen members of the Corpora tion during the period 1820- 1835 seem to have held a loof from community activity. The capacity of: Alderman Daniel to participate in the affa irs of diverse bodies excites admiration. Not only was he leader of the Corporation, the local Tories and the West India interest, and head of a la rge merchant and plantation enterprise, but he accepted office in a multitude of local o rganizations. He was emulated by Michael Hinton Castle, a Whig, who had twice spurned invitations to enter the Corporation. Castle plunged into the affairs of Railway Companies, the Zoological and Philosophical Societies and at least half-a-dozen other such bodies. Members of the Corporation customarily expected to be enro lled in honorary positions such as patron or vice-president, but few showed reluctance to participate actively, even though the work

3 3 Ages have been obtained primarily from Somerset House Dea th Certificates, Lewin 's Mead Burial Ground Register and the Transcripts of Parish Registers held by Bristol City Archi ves.

3 4 Information extracted from press reports, the records of extant societies and Alfred B. Beavan , Bristol Lists: Municipal and Miscellaneous (Bristol, 1899).

Js See H. E. Roslyn, History of the Antient Society of St. S tephen 's Ringers (Bristol, 1928).

28 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

might ta ke up a good deal o f time. In general the members o f the Corpo ration did no t isolate themselves from Bristol affa irs.

The salaried staff were respo nsible fo r the execution o f the Cor-

1 pora tio n 's policy. They were no t immune fro m o utside criticism, and were liable to be used as scapegoats. Identificatio n o f the officers is no simple task, as the Corpo ratio n placed in a separa te category those such as the gaolers who were pa id by thei r superiors a nd over whom no direct respo nsibility was exercised . A broad interpreta ti on

I puts the to tal a t about e ig hty. The principal sectio ns were concerned with the courts a nd the law, the Cha mberlain a nd Town Clerk's offices, the port , persona l a ttenda nce on the Mayor and sheri ffs, the ma rkets a nd inspecto rs. Officers were formally reappointed en bloc each December, but as their tenure was during good behavio ur, it was most difficult to remove them. Only where vacant posts carried lucra­tive fees or co mmissio ns was there a ny canvassing. Ja mes Freeman in 1832 held that the post of corn meter ideally suited his son. He tried bla ta nt bribery- "a tender of£ I ,000 to be a pplied to any pur­pose the Corpo ratio n may think p ro per". 36 Fina ncia lly straitened as the Corporation was, he underbid , a nd the son of a n ex-alderman was selected .

1 A hea vy salary bill was avo ided by the expedient of "paying" most court, po rt a nd ma rket o fficers with fees extracted from those calling on their services. So me officers, no tably the T own Clerk , received their remunera tion fro m a combina tio n of salary and fees. Calcula­tio n of the total wages bill is therefore d ifficult. If we include onl y amo unts itemized as "Officers' Sa la ries", 13% of income was so spent. If a ll such expenditure which can be traced is included , the figure rises to 20%. ·1 n fi fteen years the bi ll rose gradually from £3,200 to £4,200. Frequen t and o ften pit iable petitions for increases were usua lly granted.

I No written regula tio ns fo r the selectio n o f o fficers had ever been · d rawn up, but clearly, a policy o f interna l pro motio n had been

adopted . The fo ur chamberlains between 1773 and 1835 had all .pre­vio usly been deputy. William Diaper Brice began a long career as mayor's cle rk in 1807, earning a multiple reward as clerk to the Court of Requests, cle rk o f Arraigns and ultima tely C ity So licitor ( 1820). Executive-grade staff tended to carve o ut a career within the Cor­poratio n- Samuel Wo rra ll was Town Clerk for thirty- two years and G eorge Merrick gave sterl ing legal ser vice fo r a decade longer than that. However, an extended period of service d id no t au to matically gua rantee ho nesty, a nd to restrain itchy fi ngers substantia l sureties were o bta ined from all o fficers handling or collecting money.

An enduring issue in local government is the proprie ty o f indi­vidua ls ho lding bo th sala ried and elective positions within a single

36 Leller from J. Freeman. 13 March 1832: Town Clcrk"s Correspondence 1832.

The Struc/Ure and Politics of the Corporation 29

autho rity. Until 182 1 this duality was permitted in Bristol:3 7 it was then resolved that henceforth no sitting Common Councillor sho uld be eligible for any o ffice of profit in the gift of the Corporation. 3 8

Bringing to book a miscreant officer who was also a member o f the Corpo ratio n could prove embarrassing. Those who found the lure of a handsome salary irresistible simply resigned and became officers. Alderman Jo hn Wilcox, who coveted the vacant post of deputy-cha mberlain was not unique. Even wi th his assured pros­pects, nothing was left to chance. ··1 would be grateful ", he wrote in a fulsome letter to the Mayor, "if my application was supported by those Gentlemen with whom I have had the ho no r [sic] to be so long associated. " 3 9

The most influential officer of the Corpora tio n was the C hamber- \ lain rather than the Town C lerk, many of whose duties were per­fo rmed by a deputy since the Town Clerk was away practising in London. The Chamberlain undert ook to live near the city, to refrain from other employment, and to deposit a bond o f £~,000 guaranteed by two sureties. A p revio us C ha mberlai n, Win tour Ha rris ( 18 11-1815) had died leaving in his accounts a deficiency exceeding £5,000, of which £2,000 was never recovered . Temptation was blunted by the salary of £700 per annum, which fees supplemented to almost £ I ,000. 4 0 Nevertheless, Harris's successor, J ohn Langley, was dis­missed in 1822 for a llowing his sisters to collect rents on charity land managed by the Corpora tio n.41 One o utcome was a further investigation into the office. Sad to relate, Thomas Garrard, last Chamberlain of the unrefo rmed Corporatio n, and first Treasurer of the Town Council , in 1856 tragically marred forty years' service by embezzlin g £4 ,000 to aid a rela tive.4 2 To some extent these blemishes may have resulted from the relentlessly onerous nature o f the office. Ro utine tasks like rent collecting , posting the ledgers and keeping the accounts were the province of the deputy. But the Chamberlain himself handled the fin ances of both the Corporatio n I and the numerous charity esta tes, supervised property and periodic­a lly inspected the markets a nd building a lte ra tions. As a kind of superior general factotum , the Chamberlain could find that his ta lents st retched beyond to lera ble limits. ·

To the Chamberlains, the ro le they played probably seemed invidi- ~ ous when set a longside that of the Town Clerk , who functioned as a confidential part-time ad viser. Also appointed duri ng good behaviour, the T own Clerk was a barrister of a t least three years'

31 C. A nderson was a ppointed Collecto r o f To wn Dues in Ma rc h 18 16 and remained a Common Councillor unt il December 1822.

38 Committee Book 1819-1 835, 12 September 182 1. pp . 11 5- 116. 3 0 Letter from J . H . Wilcox, I June 1822; Town C lerk "s Correspondence 1822. 4 0 Report on the ·office of Chambe rlai n: P.C.C. 1820- 1823. 11 December 1822,

p. 363. 41 Committee fo r investigating the conduc t o f J. La ngley: Committee Book 18 19-

1835, 20 Ma rc h 1822, pp. 128- 130 . ., P.C. (Proceedings of the Council ) 1852-1857, 15 March 1856. pp. 480-482.

30 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

standing. To his £800 salary must be added the enhanced oppor­tunities for building a thrivi ng private practice. Legal duties included acting as assessor to the magistrates in Quarter Session , and admini­strative duties included the recording of Common Council minutes and the preparation of leases. On most counts, the duties conformed to the national pattern as described by Headrick:D For the entire period reviewed, Ebene7er Ludlov. . a Tory London barrister, mon­opolized the clerkship. He flouted the requirement of residence, deigning to visit Bristol only during Quarter Sessions and the legal vacation, and blandly left most of the actual work to Brice, the City Solicitor. This "administration by proxy" in 1822 inspired a local attorney and publicist . C. H. Walker. to assail the Corporation in an open letter for condoning such a travesty of proper practice.44

Ludlow's absences had in Walker's opinion already caused the magistrates to pronounce severa l ridiculous verdicts: it was " mon­strous" that "the out-of-Town Clerk" should act for the Corporation in litigati on arising from the dismissal of Edmund Griffith, Steward of the Tolzey Court, for absenteeism when Ludlow himself was the most flagrant culpnt. This made no discernible impact. Ludlow appeared for the Corporation in most of its lega l cases and parlia­mentary applications. Although he was a Tory, Ludlow wisely refrained from overtly meddling in Bristol politics.

Superficially. the staffing structure was sound. There was no empire-building, the personnel were stable, harmony prevailed among the upper echelon as did politica l rapport between the Common Council and staff, most of whom were allegedly Tory. 45

All this ought to have resulted in a competent administration, but the Corporation was beset by continual staff trouble defalcati ons, derelicti on of duty. unpardonable officiousness and even immorality. Often belatedly, committees were detailed to enquire into a specific post or breach of duty. Sometimes, as with the conduct of the Rev. Dr. Goodenough, headmaster of the Free Grammar School,40 the Corporation ineptly failed to take action . Between 1820 and 1835 enquiries were made into the conduct of twelve officers, of whom half were dismissed or not reappointed, four suspended, one re­appointed for a curtailed term and one exonerated. Was this the tip of the iceberg? Things improved after 1824, the only known serious misdemeanour being the case of three minor personal atten­dants, who were found guilty of "great impropriety in taking seven of the children of the Red Maids' School to a Licquor-shop in this city, and there treating and taking improper liberties with them".41

•-' SecT L Hcadnck. 1 he li11111 Clerk 111 EIIJ!,IIIh Local Goremme11t (London. 1962). pp.l8-19 .

._Charles 11. Walker. Leller to the Mayor & Corporatio11 .. llflilll their Judtual Co11duu and the Local Juri.1prude11ce of the Citr ( Bnstol: n.p .. I X22)

., J . B. Kmgton. A Burges.\ '.1 Lt•l/er.s. p. 34 •o !11/ra. 65-66. •- Procccdmgs of the Ma}or and Aldermen 1821-1836. X December 182X. pp.

2 16-2 19.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 31

Unfortuna tely, even the best-managed modern councils have no absolute assurance tha t their reputa tion wi ll not be sullied by the misdeeds of some wayward officer. In the circumstances, it was always likely that the Corporation of Bristo l would experience such problems, for in practice it d id no t bo ther with any effective check on the confidence it reposed in the staff. Systematic supervision was unknown, regula r independent a uditing unheard of. Until o fficers were proved wanting, thei r relia bility was accepted a nd needed no/ verification. Repeated lessons should have compelled a new a ttitude, but given the stage reached in the evolution of local government, it is not surprising that la x ha bits persisted . After all , the growth of an unimpeacha bly honest, public-spirited municipa l service was only beginning. So a lthough the Corporation was prone to shelve issues unless its cherished rights were prejudiced o r until the mis­conduct beca me o utrageous, its fa ilure to implement effecti ve management techniques can be understood . Where it cannot escape r guilt is in its offhand genera l attitude towards its local responsibil i-ties. This affected, a nd was in turn mirrored by, the a tt itude of its servants. Among the salaried staff only a qual ified dedication a nd probity was instilled by the example of their masters.

Three parts of the Corporation 's structure- the full meeting, the committees and the Court of Mayor and Aldermen- were the most important for decision-making. However, power was no t the exclu­sive possession of these formal institutions, as Alderman Da niel and probably an anonymous cabal of his confidantes were deeply in­volved in its exercise. It is impossible now to be more precise a bout the exact placement of power, and pursuit of this point could divert attention from the essential ro le that the established machinery played in the ma king of decisions. It may be tempting to demote the Common Council meetings to the sta tus of a mere ra ti fyi ng agency, but in the fi na l analysis, whatever went on behind the scenes, the legal right to determine a ma tter res ted with the Common Council, its committees and the Court of Mayor and Aldermen, o r a combination of them.

On average the full Common Council met ten ti mes a year, ] normally a t the Council House on the stroke of I p.m. Five meetings were fixed- the four q uarterly meetings a nd the swearing-in of new officers la te in September. No rigid, set o rder of business was followed, but by virtue of sta nding o rders, such as those enjoining members to remain silent and seated and to attend to the deba te, the atmosphere seems to have been reasona bly conventiona l. The Mayor in his ca pacity as chairman was assisted in maintaining o rder by his practice of intervening in debates and by the right to impose a fine of a ha lf-guinea on a ny member beha ving in bad taste. It cannot be ascerta ined whether it was customary to hold an informa l meeting prior to each meeting of the council , although party ca ucuses

32 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

had been abandoned ,4 8 probably because after 1822 there was no effective opposition to the Tories. Voting divisions at meetings were almost never recorded, and as the proceedings were in secret, the press published little but scrappy, official releases. However, time and again the names of the mayor and a cluster of aldermen appear as the movers of motions. Almost as of habit, motions and appointments were approved unanimously, but the occasional pieces of information divulged by members of the Corporation suggest that proceedings were not always cut-and-dried. In 1827 there was a serious split over whether Sir Charles Wetherell was a suitable Recorder. One year previously, "a concession to the public feeling and convenience" , that is, the rescinding of a resolution to erect a small, iron swivel bridge over the Avon, in favour of a better structure, was carried "after a warm debate" by thirteen votes to nine. 4 9

Attendance figures indicate a rather casual attitude. On average twenty-four members (62" 0 of nominal strength) were present. Even vital issues such as compensation for the Riots and police reform ( 1832) drew only 75° 0 of those entitled to attend. A group of some eighteen experienced men, among them William Fripp, Jr., and Gabriel Goldney, who each missed only one meeting in eight years, could be depended upon to turn up. The fact that a bloc of fifteen members could generally pass any resolution made it simple to put through in the name of the Corporation a positive, committed policy. 50

Devolution of work on to committees partly accounts for the care­free approach towards attending Common Council meetings. In essence, committees did two jobs cover ground as a precursor to a major decision, and manage business not warranting a place on the governing body's agenda. For this, four basic types of committee operated. Ad hoc committees were convened as specific needs identi­fied themselves: in the fifteen years under review forty-six such committees deliberated on the conduct of officers, proposals for legislation and so on. Secondly, a collection of committees, primarily consisting of the Mayor and aldermen, was reappointed each September. Among such committees were relics from the past, such as the Clavigers of the Loan Money Chest. Another, the Surveyors of the City Lands, was the kingpin among committees, being respon­sible for the corporate estates, leases and buildings. More customary was the third type, the active standing committees, annually re­appointed with some changes in personnel. They dealt with such matters as the police and the upkeep of Mayoral House. Finally, and by broad consensus first in significance, was the Court of Mayor

1 and Aldermen, a body of stature. Unless he was ill, no Mayor failed to attend all of the Court's frequent meetings. Administration of

• • Af.C.R 8ri.1tol. p. 15. •Q Hrrmrr. 23 January 1826. p. 3. so !-or further sec G . W. A Bu'>h. The Old and the Ve11 . pp 65-67.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 33

the chari ties, the regulation o f police and the rebuilding of Red { Maids' School came within its purview. Its relationship with the Common Council was a mbiguo us. The Court existed and met inde­pendently of the general body, yet it never debated the 1831 rio ts a nd only gla nced a t municipa l reform. The Court's separate existence was proba bly bound up with traditio n, prestige, emulation of London a nd the stipulation that certain benefactions be administered by it.

Committees were indispensable, but their effectiveness was im­paired by certain factors. The load was not evenly spread, ha lf the members of the governing body never sitting o n an ad hoc committee. Diligence was so patchy that quorums were set quite low, a ttendances being on a par with that o f the Common Council. Some committees met so frequently and persistently that it is surprising the good­will o f the members was not exhausted. In 182 1 the committee dealing with the Churchwardens Relief Bill met twenty times, being surpassed by the committee on the T own Dues Bills, which in 1824-1825 held fifty meetings in fifteen months without any radical decline in a ttendance. Then, there were committees convened with no busi­ness to discuss, and those which seemed in permanent hibernatio n. Even the Corporation became bewildered by the question of which committees exercised what powers. In 1835 the solic ito rs were instructed to unravel the ta ngle. 5 1 Of more moment was the a bsence o f any finance committee o r of any permanent executive committee 1

to deal with emergencies. 52 Yet on balance, the committee structure was utilita rian a nd was far fro m being inappropriate. Power to act was delega ted only in secondary matters: other decisio ns, especially where finance was in volved , had to be referred back for confirmation, which was almost invariably received. Towards the end of its days, the Corporation even started to establish sub-committees. Apart from occasio nal bungling, the system did channel business to the proper place, e liminate much time-wasting, and inhibit rushed and rash decisions. To what extent the committee system reduced the 1 full Common Council to a cipher is problematica l.

Although the basic structure of government had been devised in simpler times, it was not inherently unsuited to an expanding age. What did prove a rchaic was the exclusion o f the burgesses from a share in the Corpo ratio n 's management. One repercussio n was the mo unting of campaigns a mo ng the politically aware to fight any aggrandizement o f auth ori ty by the Corporation. Defenders of the corporate system argued tha t continuity and internal tranquillity were worth the sacrifice of representation . Even if this was correct, self-electi on fo r life placed members oft he Corporation in a euphoric atmosphere which dulled their sense of civic respo nsibi lity. The Mayo r's overburdened lo t was exacerbated by the unwritten conven-

5 ' P.C.C. 1832-1 835, 11 Ma rch 1835, pp. 275-276. 52 On their earlier role see Sidney and Beatrice Wcbb. The Manor and Borough.

Pt. 11 , p. 453 .

34 Bristol and its Municipal Governmelll 1820-1851

tion of limiting each occupant of the office to one term. Not only was this wasteful of what talent existed, but it thrust mediocrity into the Mansion House. Making the aldermen into a kind of upper tier within the Corporation, sometimes with exclusive rights, had much to commend it. Certainly they were more experienced and active than the other members, and as well as knowing the ropes, often had generous time at their disposal. It is a misconception to visualize a body of ageing notables, reluctant to vacate corporate seats or forgo what limelight the Corporation basked in. ew blood compensated for those pensioned off and even that dynamo of power, the aldermen, were not notably senior in age.

The Municipal Commissioners who visited Leeds deprecated the ingro~n nature of its Corporation:

Family influence is predominant. Fathers and sons and sons-i n­law, brothers and brothers-in-law succeed to the offices of the Corporation like matters of famil y settlement. 53

In Bristol no hereditary clique had the municipal body jumping to obey its dictates. Nevertheless there were defects: the active strength of the Corporation was impaired because of the tolerance of sleeping members; the load of committee duties was not evenly shared; a tenable chain of command among the officers was not forged; responsibility for some functions was not firmly assigned; the mem­bers of the Corporation themselves were recruited from only a narrow segment of society. Even considered collectively, these defects were not fatal. What did prevent the Corporation from developing into a fitting, adequate instrument of local government was its un­bending. imperious, and stunted attitude towards Bristol's needs.

The revolution of 1689 hoisted the Whigs up o n to a pedestal of power in the Corporation of Bristol: they were toppled only in 1812. Such was the stigma attached to the Corporation at that juncture that in succession fourteen overtures to individuals to join the Common Council were rebuffed . Finally the brothers Abraham and Geo rge Hilhouse, shipbuilders of apparently moderate Whig leanings, were persuaded to accept office. To the consternation o f the Whigs, the Hilhouses then proceeded to declare their adherence to the To ry cause. H thus giving that party, under Alderman Daniel, a slender majority in the Common Council. This they consolidated into an unbreakable grip. Despite their long exile, the Tories evinced no desire to eradicate Whig representation altogether. In fact, by 1820 the party strengths were nominally twenty apiece, 55 but because the inactive list 56 comprised six Whigs and only one Tory, Daniel's

<J M .C.R. Leeds, p. 6. cited in D. 1-rascr. Politic.\ 111 l.eeds 1830-1852 (Untvcr>ll} of Leeds: Ph D D1>senauon. 1969). p. 161.

,. J . Laumcr. Sineteenth ( 1'11/ury Amw/.1. p. 37. "See teller by .. Ci\ls ... Bmwl Oh.1ener. 16 September 1819, p. 3 •• " lnactJvc .. I> defined a; any member \\oho aucndcd less than 25"., of meetings.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 35

party was in a commanding position. To forestall a repetition of what happened in 18 12, but with the roles reversed, the- Tories filled the aldermanic vacancies which had accumula ted by 1822 only with thei r political friends. Thereafter in round figures they mustered I among the active element twenty-five o r twenty-six to the Whigs' six to nine. By 1828, eight of the eleven Whig members were inactive. Their extinction seemed imminent, but it was averted by a T ory act of resuscitation. All four vacancies then existing were filled by Whigs. Following this, replacements were selected more equitably, though the Tory majority was always large. Only one of the sixteen mayors, the unlucky C harles Pinney, was a Whig, and there was no Whig among the a ldermen chosen between 1820 and 1835. After 1828, there was, for a ll practical purposes no Whig in the Court of Mayor and Aldermen.

As the fo llowing table indicates, the Tories always triumphed in any division . The evidence for political affi liation is taken principally from the records of voting at parliamentary elections, corroborated by newspaper information about attendance at political meetings and the composition of candidates' committees. This is necessary because there is no reliable record of Common Council voting on issues which were decided on party lines. In 1830, seventeen of the twen ty-two members of the Corporation who voted gave their sup­port to Richard Hart Davis and the pro-slavery Whig, James Baillie, as opposed to Edward Pro theroe, Jr. , champion of the anti -slavery Radicals. T wo years later the pattern repeated itself when three non­Tory contenders threw Whig members of the Corporation into con­fusion . When the Whigs in 1835 foolishly broke a compact to put up only one candidate, the Tories followed their example and secured both sea ts for the first time since 1780. Bai llie was deserted by the twenty Tory members of the Corporation. They voted for the sitting M.P., Sir Richard Vyvyan, a nd the o ther Tory candidate Philip Miles. An interesting sidelight on the commitment of members of( the Corporation is that of the thirty-six who could have cast votes in the 1830, 1832 and 1835 elections, eight abstained in two or three of the elections and only eleven voted in all three.

POLITICA L COMPLEX IO OF T HE CORPORATIO

New members As at Whig Tory Un- in period I June Toral /nacrive Total lnacrive certain Whig Tory

1820 20 6 20 I 1823 15 6 25 I I 1826 13 6 26 4 3 1829 14 8 27 2 4 4 1832 11 4 28 4 I 3 1835 13 4 29 5 2 4

36 Bris/0/ and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

While no outstanding policy differences separated Bristol Tories in the early nineteenth century from their brethren elsewhere, the city tended to be a bastion of the rather old-fashioned Eldonian school. References to "the glorious constitution in Church and state" and its hand maiden, " the maintenance of the Protestant ascendancy" punctuated every Tory speech. Any leniency in " the due administra­tion of the laws of the land " was abhorred, especially in the treatment of radical working-class movements springing up under the mantle of parliamentary refo rm . Agricultural di sorders and industrial unrest were viewed, rather myopicall y, as the inevitable projection of "destructive" Whig policies. A reactiona ry posture was adopted tov.ards both Catholic Emancipation Wellington 'schangeofmind being regarded as a betrayal and reform of the Commons. Both

} parties stressed the need for Bristol M .P.s to maintain a close and Sy mpathetic contact with civic commercial interests. Unlike thei r opponents, however, the Tories always presented a united front at elections. They were wont to trumpet their candidate's virtues and "loyal and constitutional principles" rather than the policy for which he stood .

Bristol Whigs were typical of the movement nationally, for within it were three streams whose convergence was by no means assured. On the right were the old Whigs. who over i sues such as slavery edged. o r were pushed , closer to the To ries. Awkwardly sa ndwiched in between were the Liberal Reformers, whose background was

I essentially not working class. Ultimately to become the dominant element in the party, they sought to restrain the most restive element, the radical Political Unionists. Pa rliamentary elections often exposed the underlying fissures, as the tacit sharing of the two Bristol seats led to tussles among the Whigs over no mination o f their "offic ial" candidate. aturally, on policy there was much common ground among the anti-Tory factions. With the revolution of 1689 as their inspiration . they extolled parlia mentary reform, the widening of the franchise, the extension of religious liberty and a more moderate and rational handling of Ireland. Whigs claimed to be alert guar­dians of the public pur e. While they were pledged to the reform of closed municipal corporations, they were not crusaders in this matter, and the issue was not raised in the 1835 electio n. By the 1830's, the Bristol Whig reformers were starting to raise the issue of re> isiOn of the corn laws and painted the To ries as oppo nents o f electoral, socml, fiscal, re ligious and educational progress. 1 '

Identifying the political a llegiance of the members of the Corpora­tion is but a preliminary. since they may no t always have decided local issues o n party lines. We have to consider to what extent the To ries used their power and influence in the city government to

' Th1~ outhnc of the nature of local Tory1~m and WhJggl',m. ba.,cd a; 1t 1s on comemporar:, report~ of meellngs and -.pecchc-.. I'> mtcndcd merely ,1., an 1mprc-.· >JOill'>tiC a1d to a n undcr;tand ing of the pohllcal pnncipb and poliCieS lilo.cly to bl hdd h) member'> of the Hmtol Corporallon

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 37

advance the Tory cause. The most significant of a ll political behaviour was in the selection of twenty-one T ories for the twenty­eight vacancies in the Common Council between 1820 and 1835. Daniel openly solicited for recruits a t an election dinner in 1833. During the convivialities, he announced that six eminent men, among them the Marquis of Worcester a nd Lords Ellenborough and Redes­dale, a ll o f whom "supported King and consti tution", had volun­teered to serve. 58 He must have exceeded his brief, for these noble­men never became members of the Corporation . Among the salaried staff Tories also predominated, including Ludlow, the Town C lerk, Goodenough, the headmaster of Free Gramma r School, and Daniel Surges, a City Solicitor. Kington was convinced tha t a ll the clergy holding livings in the Corporation's gift were of the same persuasion, and that Wetherell had been preferred to Sir Nicho las T ynda l as Recorder simply because he was " no toriously the most violent Tory". 59 If other qualifications were a pproximately equal, a Tory ( applicant for a posi tion enjoyed a decided advantage.

Municipal power was a novel a nd exhilarating experience for the Bristol T ories. In making some political capi tal out of it, even if only to secure their dominance, they were merely emulating the Whigs, and deserve no great censure. Earlier, when the parties were finely poised, a Whig Common Councillo r pleaded with a po litical a lly who was reticent about joining the Corporation :

Come in, for God 's sake; if you a ll suffer such scruples to prevail, what shall WE do? We hall lose all our influence in the Corpora tion; these Tories are getting over us fast. 6 0

The Tory majority would have been perfectly entitled to implement a consciously Tory municipal po licy, but it made no a ttempt to do so. Once the T ories gained an unbrea kable grip on power, extreme partisanship faded. T he stimulus of a challenge to Tory solidarity and advantage had disappeared, and as a result the practice of hold­ing a party meeting befo re each meeting of the Council was aban­doned . Whig eclipse even made it possible for factions wi thin the Tory majority to air their views. The Tory Corpo ration did not steer a who lly impartial course in its policies and behaviour, but there is no evidence in the records tha t the Corporation's power and fu nds ( were grossly perverted fo r party ends. It seems li kely that political motives did no t triumph freq uently or outrageously.

Apart from parliamentary elections, which will be dealt with later, the charge sheet against the Corporation is no t formid able. Occa­siona lly, as for example with Canning a nd Liverpool in 1825, the freedom of the city was conferred on Tory leaders. When the " re ligion, laws and constitution" seemed under excepti onal threat ,

' " Mirror, 19 January 1833, p. 3. >Q J. B. Kington. A Burgess's Le11ers. p. 35. 00 Ibid., p. 37.

~ ~ .............................................. ~.

38 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

a pledge to defend them was despatched to the sovereign. 61 Some­times the Mayor declined to chair public meetings, which a lthough not avowedly pa rtisan, were overwhelmingly sponsored by Whigs and Reformers. 62 At the height of the Bristol Riots in 183 1, when the Corpora tion a ppealed for sold iers to protect Wetherell , it studiously by-passed the M. P.s, its usua l channel o f communication, presumably because they were backers of the Reform Bill.

Only with Catholic Emancipation was a serious excursion made into nationa l poli tics. T he Corporation petit ioned against both the 1825 a nd 1829 Bills. A public witness to the Corporation's principles was its ceremonial attendance at the cathedra l each anniversary of the gunpowder plo t. Here they listened to "a hea rty denunciation of popery". A rude shock awaited the dignita ries in 1828, for the preacher, the Rev. Sydney Smith, the famous master of wi t, unfolded a dispassionate, logical case for tolerance. This gave great offence. Smith la ter wrote tha t " they stared with a ll their eyes". 63 In 1829, however, the clergy a nd the City Fathers once again "drank a number of a bsurd toasts" and " heard a number of ridiculous sentiments" about the true religion.64

Accusations a nd recriminations fi lled the newspapers after the 183 1 Riots. The Corporation was branded as a busy meddler in political affairs. Otherwise, why had a concourse of respectable citizens shrunk from lending assista nce a t the height of the crisis? "Utterly fa lse", retorted the T ory journal, Black wood's Magazine:

The corpo ra tion have never acted together as politicia ns, or exerted political influence . . . . Nor can it be shown that the cor­poration ever issued one political document. 65

This indeed, was true, for no evidence can be fo und that the Cor­pora tion ever officia lly and overtly acted as a political organ. Temptations did a bound to assist the party cause surreptitiously by exercising various kinds of influence, but the Corporation's indiscre­tions here amounted to little.

It seems tha t even in the field most open to abuse, parliamentary elections, the Corpora tion applied only indirect, almost innocuous leverage. Bristol was a n " open" borough of over 5,000 voters. Sittings of the 1835 Select Committee on Bribery heard that treating, free beer, money payments, intimidation and exclusive practice were ubiquitous at election times. 66 Hence there were attempts to unseat victors of the 18 12, 1820, 1830 and 1832 contests. It disgusted the author of The Ex traordinary Black Book, an a nonymo us expose of

61 See P.C.C. 1827- 1832, 26 June 1832. p. 548. 61 See for example Journal, 25 ovember 1820 and 15 Ja nuary 1831, p . 3. 63 owell C. Smi th (ed .). The Letters of Sydney S mith, Vol. I (Oxford , 1953).

p. 483. 04 Hesketh Pearson, The Smith of Smiths (London, 1945), p. 193. 65 Black11·ood's Magazine, Ma rch 1832, p. 468. ••see Committee on Bribery, 1835, pp. 375-384 and 39 1-417.

The Structure and Politics of the Corporation 39

governmental corruption, venality and sinecures, that in Bristol "democracy is OMNIPOTE T, freemen consisting almost entirely of shipwrights, journeymen and labourers". 67 Whatever coercion the members of the Corporation applied as individuals, as a civic body they can be largely exculpated. Until 1835 the compact to share representation rendered systematic corruption unnecessa ry. Whole­sale admissions of freemen did precede elections, 68 but the Corpora­tion neither paid or waived fines or fees nor discriminated against those of hostile political belief. Bristol does not provide support fo r the view that by the creation of freemen, corporations dictated the electoral outcome in open boroughs as thoroughly as they did in direct nomination boroughs. 69

A substantial number of public houses were owned by the Cor- / poration. Public houses were the usual venue for d istributing free beer and other inducements, but the Corporation derived no profi t from hotels apart from rent for the build ings and land. Sim ilarly, little credence should be given to the assertion that the other local bodies were packed with Tories for that party's electoral benefit. Even if it could be shown that this was contrived by the CorporationJ it could equally pla usibly be argued that it related to strictly loca1 matters and not to party politics.

The charge was also made that chari ties, notably loan moneys, were distributed as political bribes. Was there any justi fication for the alleged " universal and enti re conviction" that it was pointless apply­ing for charities unless one voted as " the wind blew"? Records of disbursements are incomplete, and Tories did win votes for reasons other than bribery or intimida tion. A check of the 1830 and 1832 voting record of those who benefited from Sir Thomas White's loan money reveals that as many opted for the reformers as for the "official combination". lt is also difficult to say whether contracts were awarded for political reasons. Among the two-thirds of trades­men who executed Corporation repairs and who normally voted, Toryism was rampant. All eleven such contractors voted for one Tory in 1835, and seven did so for both. An open avowal of Liberalism probably diminished the chances of being engaged, but even a stainless Tory record was no guarantee that a man would get a contract.

A possible front for poli tical activi ty by the Corporation was the Conservative Operatives Association, formed in 1832. It was prompted by "a great many rich men", including seven or eight members of the Corporation. The charities it ostensibly disbursed were apparently rewards fo r having voted the correct way. At an early stage the Associa ti on contemplated itself as an auxiliary " to

0 7 ··The Original Editor ... The Exrraordinary Black Book (London. 183 1 ), p. 556. 68 Supra. p. 21. • • Edward and Annic G. Porritt , The Unrejormed House of Commom: Parliamen­

/(/ry Represemation before 1832 (Cambridge. 1909). p. 80.

40 Bristol and irs Municipal Government 1820-185 1

act in an emergency on beha lf of the magistra tes". 7° Cloaking a party fo rce in quasi- legal garb was fra ught with grave danger a nd such a n objective was no t pursued . This example typifies the pitfalls inherent in assessing the Corporation as a party machine. It is easy to suggest guilt by association, but members of the Corporation as individuals had a perfect right to dona te thei r vote, wealth o r talents to wha tsoever party they chose. Their inclusion in Blue canvassing pa rties- in 1832 these were escorted by Cor poration constables­may have created an intimidatory effect on the voters, but it was perfec tl y legit imate. Daniel was the best example of this d ua lity: he was leader o f the Corporation a nd perpetua l chairman of Tory campaign committees and the West India Association. Thirteen members o f the Corporation assisted Lord Somerset's ca mpaign in 183 1 in G loucestershire. A gro up of them always headed Tory­o rganized pet itions. Goldney, Fripp, Jr. a nd Abraham Hilhouse were la ter reinforced as leading Tory acti vists by Charles Payne, Nicholas Roch, Henry Newman a nd Willia m Watson. Bristol's Tory pa per , the Journal, never overlooked an opportunity to emphasize that Alderman Daniel presided o r that Councillors Newman and Roch were on a committee. This was perha ps a trifle unfa ir, obliquely implying officia l endorsement. Yet members of the Cor-

( poration could no t divest themselves of their municipal cha racter merely because they ha ppened to be associa ted with a party canvas.

ot hing warrants the insinuation that the Corporation indulged in gross pa rtisa nship. Whatever its peccadilloes, it was bla meless compared to the no to rious Coventry Corpora tion, where the election of M. P.s dominated the whole procedure. 7 1 Scrupulous impartia lity in selectin g officers a nd awarding contracts might no t have been maintained , but any la pse which occurred was mild compared to the rank exclusion cha racteristic o f Leicester in the a ppointments from Mayor to most hu mble servant. 72 Vehement disclaimers from the Corpora tion and its friends tha t it sought to influence, or was

\

even in te rested , in parlia mentary elections, 73 do ring t rue. Indeed,

there was no need to sq ua nder the limited funds when the re turn f one Tory M.P. was assured a nd the pa rty had its own channels f influence. Two other pieces of evidence point to a Corpora tion

which was virtuous in this respect: fi rst, among the list o f those nomin ated to the Corpora tion but who declined to serve, Whig a nd Tory appea r in equal numbers. Secondly, as will be shown in a la ter chapter, no hostile wi tness at the Municipa l Corporations Enqui ry in 1833 as much as whispered tha t the Corpora tion was indulging

' 0 Select Commillee on Bribery, 1835, p . 4 17. 71 S. E. Kerrison. Covemry and the Municipal Corpora/ions Act, p. 49. " A . Temple Patterson . Radical Leices1er: A Hiswry of Leicester 1780-1850

( Leicester. 1954). p . 208. ' J Sec for example House of Lords Journals. LXV II. 1835: Evidence o n the Muni­

cipal Corporatio ns Bill. p. 410.

The S tructure and Politics of the Corporation 41

in knavish pa rty tricks. Bristo l can be honourably exempted from the Commission's finding that " the perversion of Municipal institu­tions to political ends had occasioned the sacrifice of local interest to party purpose" . 7 4

In any case, the Tory councillors were of sufficient acumen to see the fo lly of converting the Corporation into a party engine. Their wi ll ingness to allow the depleted Whig/ Liberal representa tion to be rebuil t p roves that they were no t even aspiring to a monopoly. The furthest they went was to blur the distinction between their activities as individuals and their acts in Common Council and to display some partia lity in choosing Tory colleagues and employees. Steering a course remote from national politics was both expedient and deliber­ate. They had their wea knesses but members of the Corpora tion as a whole firml y believed tha t the body in which they sat was an end in itself, no t to be lightly prostituted for some extraneous cause.

,. M.C. R: General. p. 49.

C HAPTER THREE

THE F UNCTIO SAND ACTIVIT I ES OF THE CORPORATIO

Any discussion of the nature of the Corporation must be concerned I both with local government, of which it was undeniably a unit, a nd volunta ry associa tions, in which it played some part. In this second category, it exercised functions having only a tenuous re lationship with the public affairs of Bristol. According to Laskl , I members o r corpora tions as a class did not normally regard themselves as forming the governing body of any borough. If they provided public service , it was as a gift and not as a duty, a lthough as social leaders they acknowledged some obligation to improve the community.

The Corporation of Bristo l was the senior governing body. What­ever criterion is used it was the institutional voice of Bristo l. " Voice" should not be interpreted as " mouthpiece", "spokesman'' o r still less, as "delegate", but in the broader sense of being an autonomous a rticulator a nd guardian of the City' interests. Such responsibilities as the Corporation bore were self-defined. With this in mind, the Mayor. J ohn Barrow, could, when laying the Council House founda tion stone in 1824, declare without a trace of hypocrisy that the Corporation had ever "discharged their trusts with honour and fidelity to the public". 2

Such trusts were subordinate to obligations due to the Corporation in its private capacity. Prio rity was given to the safeguarding of its own welfa re a nd interests. These corporate rights, which were not subject to outside interference, consisted of contro l over estates and funds, and privileges won over many centuries. The Corporation sought with much success to block any change in public matters that it did not endorse. Yet backed by solid legal opinion,3 the Corporation rejected any obligation to use its wealth on public pro­jects and refused to d ivulge details of its finances. It wanted to control

I aspects of public affairs without any corresponding assumption of responsibility. It insisted tha t its prerogatives were not amenable to revision and that its composi tion be self-determined. Such insistence was no t really compatible with acting as the guardian of the city' greater interests. However, as there was no other claiman t to such a

1 H . J . Laski. W. I. Jennings a nd William A. Robson. A Century of Municipal Progress. T11e Last Hundred Years (Lo ndon. 1935). p. 55.

ZJohn Evans, A Chronological History of Brwol (Bristol: n p .. 18~5). p. 331 3 Sec speech of S1r Robert Peel, Hansarc/'s Parliamemary Deb(lles. XXV III ( 1836).

p. 559.

The Functions and Acriviries of rhe Corporation 43

role, the Corporation was a ble to impose its own rules. Among the e the most crucia l wa that the Corpora tion itself v.ould decide if and how it would become in volved in any public matter.

The Corpo rati on outra nked the C hurch as Bristol's largest { property owner. It had acquired a large number of estates within the city and in Gloucestershire a nd Somerset, including commercia l premises and priva te houses. Along with the Exchange and St. James' markets, they kept the Corporation solvent. O ver 42°

0 o f

it income was derived from rents and renewa ls, o r 63% if ma rket f fees are included. An 1836 valua tion4 estima ted the city property as being worth £ 187,080, a nd this was after substantial a liena tions. City properties wereunder the Cha mberl ain 's supervision, and he reported to the cit y surveyors, on whom the full Council had devolved responsibility. 5 Generall y, there was efficiency in manage­ment, but there was a chronic problem of unpa id rents, and there had been some injudicious renewal of leases. Swamped by mounting debt, the Corpora tion in 1832 sta rted as an expedient to capitalize its property. This raised £ 14,000, and a repetition of this policy just befo re it was dissolved netted £8,069 from city premises. Bristo l was not alone in resorting to th is questionable procedure- Leeds sold off every single building and plot o f land,0 though not for base purposes. So common was this unloading of assets that a clause was inserted into the Municipal Corporations Bill giving the Government/ power to nullify a ll transactions made coll usively after the Bill entered the Commons.

The country estate , while a lmost equa l in capital value to the ci ty properties, produced only one-tenth of their income. They were supervised by the Land-Steward on beha lf of the C hamberlain . The principa l ho ld ings consisted of 1,246 acres at Portishead and North­weston, 859 acres at Gaunts Earthcott, near Almondsbury, a nd 707 acres at Stock la nd Bristol, seven miles north-west of Bridgwater. Sundry ho ldings, mo t ly wi thin a ten mi le radius of the Quay-head, tota lled 934 acres. After expenses were deducted, the esta tes pro- I duced 6° 0 o f the Corporation 's income. A switch to annua l leases \ so improved the sta te o f the farms that in 1833 the Land-Steward was able to report diplomatically:

The Tenantry, with a few exceptions, are respectable, and pay their rents well , and they eem to have acquired confidence in the fai r and honou rable conduct of their Landlords towards them,

4 P.C. (Proceedings of the Council) ( I). IS February I!D6. p. 65. 5 Sidney and Beatrice Wcbb (Webb Collection on Local Government, vol. 225:

London School of Economics) gained the impression from a study of 18 16-1822 Minutes that appointments and property almost monopolized business: in fact, by an item count they const ituted only some 60" o·

6 D. Fraser. Politics in Leeds 1830- 52 (University of Leeds: Ph. D. Dissertation. 1969), p. 166.

44 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

so as to apply themselves to the good cultiva tio n of their farms .7

j Pro perty was regarded more as an insurance policy against depre­cia tion of currency than as a means of financial aggrandizement. The Corporation between 1820 and 1835 purchased in its own right o nly three houses and one business premise. It did, however, embark o n an ill- tarred project fo r a hotel a t Portishead, which in five years devoured £6,500 plus the bulk of the Po rtishead manor rents. Cor-

\ po ratio n records are curio usly silent on this little experiment. The Corporation 's enthusiasm for acquiring private buildings

might have been waning, but not its desire for possessing sump­taus and imposing public buildings. No expense was spared on their renovation or replacement, especially when they were earmarked for the Corporation's use. A new cattle market at Temple Meads ( 1829), a Council House ( 1827) and a Guildhall ( 1829)8 were built , and the Mayor's C hapel subjected to what Latimer scathingly referred to as " destructive ' restorations'". The replacement o f the Council House on the same Broad Street site cost over £23,000 for building and equipment. Its misalignment with the carriageway inspired someone to pen the dry ditty:

" I wonder," said a Bristol friend of mine, ··our Council Ho use should be so out o f line?" " Why so?" quoth I, " from all that I can see, Your House and Councils do right well agree; For surely no ne will question what I state, That both of them are anything but straight. " 9

Over an appropriate residence for the chief dignitary, the Corpora­tion vaci lla ted . After the 183 1 Rio ts put an end to plans for up­grading the existing building, Richard Bright"s Great George Street ho use, previously purchased for 5,000 guineas, was fitted out _I 0

During the peri od between 1820 and 1835 the inordinate sum of £19,000 was spent o n mayoral accommodation.

The Corporation also held twelve advowsons the right to present to nine country and three city livings.tt It was concerned with the fabnc of the churches as well as in the selectio n of incumbents. It must have felt some temptation to replenish its funds by selling presentations, but this it firml y withstood.t 2

Enamoured as it was with ceremony and display, the Corporation regarded its own entertainment and mo re sparingly, that o f the

'··coun try Estates 1833""; a survey and va luat1on by Y . and J. P . Sturge; introduction.

8 Sec Bri.srol Times, 17 July 1858. p. 6. • Journal, 25 September 1824. p. 3. 1

" Sec J. Latimcr. Ninereen:h Cenrun· Annals. p. 134. and infra, p. 62. 11 See M .C. R. Brisrol, p. 49. 12 In 1833 an ofT er of £3.000 "'a~ made for the right to make the next presentat ion

to Porushead

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 45

populace- as an integral part of its functions. Most of the balls, dinners and processions were associa ted with some genuine event or observance, though the boisterous opening of the ancient and defunct Court of Pie Poudre was very much a relic from the past. 13

In 1794 there were no fewer than twenty-seven annual civic cere­monies, involving six processions, such as the swearing-in of new officers on Michaelrhas Day, two formal visits to the Cathedral , seven to the Mayor 's C hapel , three to the Gui ldha ll, two to the Mayor's House and nine to parish churches. Most agreeable of all to the members of the Corporation were the seventeen dinners.14

In addition, there was a full calendar of repasts for senior officers. Kington, a fervent exponent of the utilitarian, denounced the Cor­poration for what he alleged was reckless and extravagant spending. "Only a body to ta lly insensitive to the city' s economic distress," he maintained, "could indulge in strutting a nd feasting while having the effrontery to plead tha t it was too poor to effect improve­ments. " 1 5 Because of the diverse sources from which this expenditure was met, it is probable that not even the members of the Corpora­tion themselves, let alone a n inquisitive outsider, had an accurate idea of the actual cost.

In general the public took no part in these festivities. They were allowed to view the formal appearances of the Corporation: these were thought to maintain the civic dignity. The visits of eminent personages and the accession of new monarchs, notably George IV, were occasions to impress on the outside world the grandeur, status and affluence of the Corporation of Bristol. However, the halcyon days of entertaining celebrities had passed, the last example being the£ 1,000 reception accorded the Duke ofWellington in 18 16. Cer­tainly, parsimon y was pushed aside to honour Canning a nd Liver­pool in 1825 . Thereafter only the occasiona l echo of former expansiveness was audible, as when £570 was spent on looking after visiting judges at the trials of the 1831 rioters. 16 Typical of the new regime of economy was the two guineas outlaid on insta lling the Duke of Beaufort as High Steward in 1834. Latimer estimated that I in 18 10 25% of income was consumed in display a nd the pleasures of the table. For 1820-1 835, the figure may have been in the region of 12%- a reduction att ributable not to a more puritan code of ethics, but to depleted funds.

It is logical to examine the Corporation 's role in the port in con­junction with its attitude to the state of trade. Bristol's lifeblood was trade and its port the chief artery: no o ther subject remotely approached this in its abi lity to animate phlegmatic merchants and

13 For a description see /1'/ irror, 7 October 1826, p. 3. 14 See ··ceremonies observed by the Corporation of Bristol" ; m.s. copy from

Swordbearer's Book. 1794. " J. B. Kington. A Burgess's Letters, letters 4 and 5 passim. 16 Journal F 1825-1832, ff. 515 and 568.

46 Bris tol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

ma ke them indict the Corpora tion fo r dereliction of duty. In the decade a fter 1823, it generated immense sound a nd fury, pi tting against the Corporation redoubta ble individuals and organiza tions. It directly touched the pockets of thousands of Bristo lians and was seen in the perspecti ve of a major influence on the ci ty's future development.

Before examining this controversy in detail , it is necessary to establish the chief features of the Corporation 's relationship with the port. The Corporation enjoyed the status of being the "owners of the port a nd conservato rs of the river", but in practice it dele­gated its rights to o thers. It had entrusted the supervision of the pilo ts and 'the upkeep of the quays a nd cranes to the Society of Merchant Venturers a nd the actual ma nagement of the wharves to the Dock Company. Its direct responsibility was confined to the three princi­pal ha rbour officers a nd the state of the rivers. 1 7 Items concerning the port rarely appea red on the agenda, a nd the Corpora tion did no t bother to ma intain a port or ha rbour committee. Nevertheless, it had a considerable pecunia ry interest, as it received an income from the town a nd mayor's dues, which were levied on goods crossing the wharves.

Obviously, there was a correlat ion between these municipa l levies and the state of trade. From an economic point of view, the dues could inhibi t trade, but there was a psychological element present too. Pointing out to aggrieved merchants that the dues were but a pitta nce compared with the million pounds collected annually by the customs in no way mo llified them. The Corporation believed

l that the fos tering of trade was not its concern, o r a t least was sub­servient to its duty to preserve its rights intact. 1 8 In 1832, when the plight of trade was universa lly acknowledged , the Corpora tion ma intained tha t it was unable to a lleviate econo mic d istress. Two reductions in the rates of the dues were made in 1825 a nd 1835. O therwise, its sole contribution was to vote £ 1,000, less than ha lf of which was eventua lly disbursed, to aid the esta blishment of the stea m packet trade in 1823. 19 So me local his to ria ns, like the Reverend Sa muel Seyer, were so awed by the Corpora tion tha t they depicted it as the very fount of Bristol's prosperity. In dedicating his work to the Corporation in 182 1, he maintained that:

By just and prudent regula tions a nd practices they have raised this city to a high degree of opulence and importance. 2 0

He no doubt believed wha t he wrote, but any publication a ppearing between 1823 and 1835 a nd prefaced by similar fulsome remarks would have been derided as a la me, commissioned apology.

1 ' ror example the scheme to build a bridge over the A von at Pill. (P.C.C. I 8:!3- 1827, 13 June 1827), pp. 347-348.

'" For an instance sec ibid. , 17 January 1824, p. 26. ''' P.C.C. 1820-1 823. 11 J une 1823. pp. 4:!0-421. zn Sa muel Scyer. Memoirs of Brisrol ( Bnsto l: n.p .. 182 1 ), mtro.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 47

What impelled Jo hn Gutch, editor and proprieto r of the avowedly To ry Journal, to launch in 1823 under the nom de plume of"Cosmo" an assault o n the municipal port dues is something of a mystery. Gutch was a champion o f the virtues o f Bristo l, and lauded the Corpo ra tion for its preserva tion of the law, religio n and charities, yet he condemned it for stifling trade. Not only had the dues suffered a ninefold increase si nce 1770, but thei r lega lity was debatable. They rested not on statute or consent , but on custom, and this implied a contract, with some benefit conferred o n the payer. 2 1 Suspiciously low rates applied to commodities like suga r a nd rum in which some of the members of the Corpo ratio n had a commercia l interest.

G utch cited with approval the case of Dublin, where indepen­dently-minded merchants had launched a C hamber of Commerce. On I January 1823 such a body came into existence in Bristol, a I Whig, Joshua Reyno lds, being chosen inaugural president. Gutch delivered the keynote speech. Relations wi th the Corporatio n were a t first cordial, but they deteriorated when the C ha mber, whose membership quickly reached two hundred, started agi tating for lower ra tes of local taxation .

In August, a memorial praying for relief2 2 was ignored , the Cor­poration seemingly hoping to stifle the movement. When another petition was presented, the Corporation replied with a meaningless assurance o f its anxiety to promote prosperity. 23 It consented to hear submissio ns, but when only the Chamber responded, further consideration o f the issue was deferred. As it regarded the Corpora­tio n's actio ns as evasive, the C ha mber then placed its case before the President of the Board o f Trade and the C hancellor of the Exchequer. In essence the case was g rounded o n the fact tha t, in te rms of tonnage handled by British ports, Bristo l had now sunk to fourth place. T he Chamber also o bjected to the absence o f any quid pro quo for the payment o f the dues. 2 4 The Corporation was o ffended both a t being bypassed and a t this disrespect for its rights, and it moved swiftly. A counter-deputation was despatched, a nd as well as appointing an influential town dues committee, the Corpora­tion gave no tice of its intention to seek legisla tio n which would modify the imposts.

When the draft Bill was published , it o nly inflamed and reinfo rced the opposition. The general o pinion was that it did no t provide for any who lesale lowering o f dues, a nd in fac t no schedule of ra tes was appended. The Bill was seen as a stratagem by the Corporation to give the dues an indisputable parliamentary title in place of f the existing prescriptive righ ts, which could be challenged . This

2 1 J. M. G utch, Cosmo's Ll'llers. no. 6, p. 22 and no. 11, p. 47. The Bristol City Archives holds the o riginal letters to and from ··cosmo" and materia l relating to the forma tion of the Chamber of Commerce and the town dues issue.

2 2 P.C.C. 1820- 1823. 15 September 1823, p. 442. 2 3 P.C.C. 1823- 1827. I ovcmber 1823. pp. 1-3. 24 Chamber of Commerce, Report 011 Local Taxatio11, p. 18.

UNIVERSITY JF' ~~~ T :)L

.~,~------------------------

48 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

resulted in deep suspicion, even among the friendly Merchan t Venturers. The Corporation sought in vain to allay misgivings:

[The Corporation] were fully satisfied of the validity of the Title thereto. If they were not so, it would be unworthy [of] the character and respectability of a public Body to attempt by indirect means to acquire a right not appearing on the face of the Bill , to be its real object. 2 5

Even this assurance did not dispel hostility, and so, expressing its regret that its selfless motives had been misconstrued, the Corpora­tion abandoned the Bill.

Throughout the rest of 1824 the parties involved discussed the possibility of compromise. T he Merchant Venturers, who were not so adamantly opposed to the Bill , came to an agreement whereby the obnoxious ad valorem dues (fixed at two-thirds of 2d. in the £) were replaced by a package rate. 26 After more intricate negotiations, the two major adversaries adopted principles fixing a maximum for

\the dues of £4,000 per annum, abolishing the mayor's dues, ending the exemption of freemen from liability, and making sundry other adjustments. 27 To the Corporation, tacit agreement was one thing and actual implementation another. Time passed without any action, despite a series of memorials. What finally compelled the Corpora­tion to act was a threat by a Clifton resident, Lieutenant-General Robert Browne, attached to the Royal Lancers, to sponsor an appropriate Bill himself if the pledge to exempt Iri sh trade from the dues was not honoured . 28 The question was hastily reopened and another Bill was brought in.

In an accompanying statement, the Corporation warned interested parties that it would to lerate no dictation or interference, and that if any occurred, it would order the passage of the Bill to be halted. This attempt at intimidation was related to the fact that the new Bill for the most part contained all the objectionable provisions of the earlier Bill. The only exceptions were the exemption of the Irish and coastal trade from the dues and the introduction of a package

l rate. Still intact were the parliamentary confirmation of the tit le, discrimination in favour of freemen, and rates far in excess of Liver­pool's.

During the Committee stage five days were occupied while counsel engaged in a wordy, legal battle revolving around the inclusion of provisions conferring on the Corporation a statutory right to the dues. Ludlow, leading for the Corporation, combined circumlocu­tion and irrelevancy with a cultivated ignorance of the rules of

"Town and Mayor's Dues Bill Committee Book. 15 March 1824. lo J . La timer, History of the Merchant Vemurers. p. 239. 17 Journal. 22 May 1824, p. 3. 2• P.C.C. 1823-1 827. 8 December 1824. p. 114.

The Functions and Activilies of the Corporation 49

Committee procedure. 29 His bons mots afford an insight into the Corporation 's attitude:

If I am the proprietor of the dues, I may be a do lt o r an idiot ... but if it be my right , I have a right to stand o n it by the law of the land, and I have a right to say, " let Bri stol perish altogether" . 3 0

He was equa ll y dogmatic when requested to produce corpora te records which rela ted to revenue from the dues:

I do no t know, whether I sho uld not prefer going to Newgate, ... after the considera tio n I have given to this subject, before I produced a ny papers. 31

Those opposing the measure won a minor victory when in the preamble to the Bill which recited possessio n of and entitlement to I the tolls, the words " claim to be" were inserted . The Chamber then endeavoured to have inserted an almost-iden tical clause which would have saved the citizens· rights . The Corporatio n would not yield, and consequently, the Chamber's delegat ion, among them G utch and McAdam , stepped up its lobbying, and when the Bill entered the Lords it contained the crucia l provision saving the citizens' I rights. Altho ugh fo rced o n to the defensive, the Corpo ration refused to consider a compro mise. Instead, it issued its usual threat about withdrawing the Bill a nd had the savings clause replaced by o ne of its own invention. Changed terminology could not disguise the hollowness of the Co rporation 's triumph, for the right to contest the legality of dues rema ined unimpa ired. In the end the Corporation emerged with its finances and reputation battered. It spent over £ 1,000 on the measure, which received the roya l assent o n 8 July 1825.

The contest over the Bill had shown that in the eyes of the Corporation it own cherished rights took precedence over the city's J prosperi ty. During the parlia mentary hearings, Ludlow had ex- J plicitly declared, "It has been said that the Burgesse of Bristol are interested in this as well as the Corporation. I deny the principle altogether. " 32

Passage of the Bill did not settle matters, and receipts from the dues declined by 55° 0 in the next five years. 33 Mindful of the savings clause, certain non-free merchants promptly announced tha t they would refuse to pay the dues. If it was not to suffer a humilia ting

29 See "An Eye- Witness", The Evidence. Speeches of Counsel . and Proceedings in Parliament , upon the Bristol To11·n and Mayor's Dues Bill (Bristol. 1825).

JO Ibid .. p. 32. J I Ibid .. p. 7!l. JZ Ibid., p. 66. lJ Between l!l20-l!l25 town dues averaged £3,563 and mayor"s dues £ 1.557: for

the first live years after the Act the ann ual figures were £1 .762 and £567 respectively.

50 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

reversal, the Corporation had no alternative but to prosecute these rebels. There was a parallel elsewhere: in 1830-1 832 Swansea mer­chants were similarly defiant, putting its municipal body to great expense (over £2,000) to uphold its rights. 34 Harman Visger, the first defendant and later to be a leading Liberal member of the Council for more than two decades, complicated the matter by becoming free in the period immediately before the case was tried. Eventually he, J . A. Ames and S. and A. Cambridge had judgment entered against them. While waiting his trial , the fourth defendan t, Henry Bush, did no t remain inactive. With the moral backing of a number of commercial concerns, Bush had prepared a point-by­point refutation of the Corporation's case that the right to the dues was verified by ancient documents, a nd that hitherto receipt of the dues had not been contested . Bush was a staunch Conse~vative and became a councillo r of stature, but at this stage of his career he was an opponent of the municipal authorities. At the trial , all Bush's resistance and logic was fruitless. Lo rd Justice Tenterden, afflicted by what Latimer termed ··a superstitious reverence for privilege and prerogative",35 summed up decidedly in favour of the plaintiffs. The Corporation was awarded the verdict and a no minal two pounds in damages, and subsequently managed to recover as costs £1 ,662 of their total outlay o f £2,300.36 Bush turned the trial to good account in another connection : he wrote a book on the town duties3 7

which made an impact o n those merchants who were no t burgesses. However, the Corporation was not persuaded to reco nsider the wisdom of imposing these provocative dues.

No further significant developments occurred for five years. Not all were reconciled to payment o f the dues, but it seemed folly to waste hundreds o f pounds contesting thei r legality after the o utcome of Bush's trial had created the precedent. Thus, the next attack on the dues took a different form. The cause was taken up in 1833 by a Whig accountant, John Kington , whose criticism of the select nature of the Corporation has already been examined. 38 In February the Mercury printed the first of wha t became a series of

1 thirty letters, extending over a year, by " A Burgess". The message addressed to the Corporation was that the ruinous effects of the various tolls a nd dues would be perpetua ted as long as their levying was the prerogative of closed bodies. The theme was reminiscent of that pursued by the Chamber of Commerce a decade earlier, but a move by the directors to petition Parliament about the reform of Bristol's municipal system was quashed at a special meeting in 1833.

14 T . R1dd. The Del'e/opme/11 of .Hwuupal (,o,·emmt•nt 111 S~twl.\l'tl 111 the /IIth Centurr (U111vcr;11y of Wale!>: M.A. The!.!>. 1955). p. ~7.

·" J . Latuncr. Vinetel.'lllh Cl'nturr Anna/.1. p 193. "'Journal. I~ J ul} llQ8. p J ,. Hcnr} Bu,h. 8n.1tol 7111111 Dwies a wllt•Uton of ongmal umlmtl'rnting dom·

mcnt1 llltendet! tol'\p/mn and elwttlllle the uhm1• tmportunt •uhtiTt (Bn,tol. I!CXJ I Supra. rr ~J-~4

The Functions and Activit ies of the Corporation 5 1

Thereafter the Cha mber acted as if it be lieved that the Corpo ra tio n was being unjustly a ttacked . wl.. '\

Kingto n lamented the long history of discord a nd wra ngling which had plagued Bristo J3 9 a nd in the final lette r- a summary o f his case for an elected Council- he ind ic ted the Corpo ratio n for having a bused power fo r party and personal ends. This misrule had led to a loss o f confidence amo ng the cit izens.40

Understa nda bly, the Corpo ratio n gave no indicatio n tha t it ever officia lly noticed the Letters. Perhaps as the Mercury insisted , they created "a considerable sensation". Yet the essence o f the case that electi ve bodies wo uld never have a llo wed dues to stay a t a level inimical to trade was somewhat tendentious. Nevertheless, the fact that in 1835 a ll dues were first further reduced and then the dues on exports abo lished entirely41 testifies to the influence o f Kington 's work . By focusing o n po lic ies instead o f personalities, his discursive commenta ry rendered the mercha nts trading thro ugh Bristo l a great service.

Whereas in 1827 the proportion of felons to every I 0,000 of the popula tion in G reat Brita in was 11 · 2, in Bristo l it had cl imbed to 28·3. 4 2 Seven year s p reviously certa in a larmed College G reen inha bitants decided to organize themselves into an unpaid but armed night wa tch as a means o f

prevent ing many depreda tions a nd pro bably of bringing some o f those ... infamo us characters with which this c ity is now infested to a well-merited punishment. 43

That even rud imentary la w and o rder was maintained was mo re a mark of the law-abiding habits of the average Bristo lian tha n it was a tribute to the work o f the municipal magistra tes, who were the aldermen o f the Corpo ratio n. The magistra tes re lied mo re o n penal than preventive measures. As " " decla red in 1822:

that the POLICE OF BRISTOL is either miserably inefficient , or crimin­ally negligent in the d ischarge o f its duties, is . . . admitted o n a ll sides. 44

No po int is served in examining further the unsa tisfactory state of the po lice force. In mitiga tio n of th is it can be said tha t it was more a ea e of benign neglect than it was o f delibera te denial o f

10 J. B. Kmgton, A Burge.\.\ ·.\ Le11ers. p. 18. 4 0 lbl(l. , pp. 52-55. 4 1 P.C.C. 1832-1835. 11 March 1835. pp. 276-282 and 15 September 1835, pp.

308-309. 42 M ermry. 3 September 1827. p. 3. 4 3 Journal, 16 December 1820. p. 3. 44 lbid .. 16 November 1822. p. 3.

52 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

responsibility. In theory, a cha rt of the structure of the police force suggests that it was well organized:

BRISTOL POLICE FORC E 1820- 1835

Day Night Special

Num ber: 136 wa rd or petty 115 night wa tch- A 17 Corpo ration officers constables men B Special constables

Organization: Ward basis Ward basis A When required (part-time) (part-time) B Elections and threats to

public order

Supervision: 12 chief constables 15 night constables 12 chief constables and and aldermen a ldermen

Appointment: Magistrates Magistrates Magistrates

Salary: Corpo ration Watch rate Corporation Letters of credit

Note: In 1832 12 full-time day consta bles appointed

About this establishment there are several significant features . First,

I until 1832 there was an absence of any systematic policing of the city by day. Apart from visiting public houses, the petty constables were normally inoperative. Secondly, police services were purchased on the cheap. A perusal of the Corporation's accounts reveals almost no expenditure on the old day force, while the watch rate, financed on the p0or rate basis, yielded such a trickle that chief constables resorted to borrowing or to issuing notes of credit.

'

Thirdly, the qua lity of those entrusted with lawkeeping provoked disquiet rather than assurance. In a four month spell in 1832, when it might be supposed that the Riots had dictated a more conscien-tious approach, the night constables of one ward reported that in at least eleven instances, watchmen, derisively termed " old C harleys", had been found drunk and/or asleep on duty. It was also alleged that the footmen and menia l servants of members of the Corporation were plentiful among the ranks of constables and con­tinued to be employed as " waiters at dinners, routs a nd card pa rties". 45 There was no inaccuracy in the Municipal Corporations Report's description of the Bristol police as " exceedingly defec-

1 tive".4 6 Lastly, the Corporation stood in an ambivalent relationship to the police. It provided the wages, and its a ldermen ultimately directed all branches of the force, yet it parried the rising volume of complaints by steadfastly maintaining that the corporate body

'~nd the ?ench were actually two separate, autonomous bodies, even m practtce.

4 5 Cited in Roderick Waiters, The Establishment of the Bristol Police Force, Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. 1975, p. 4.

40 See ~bid., pp. I 0- 11 for an expla na tion of other reasons why this situation prevailed .

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 53

This convenient duality a lso offered a defence when the magistracy was rebuked for laxity. The true situation was that miscreants were apprehended by corporate police a nd brought before corporate ) j ustices- and then, if convicted, thrown into a corporate gaol. Bristol jealously guarded its right of exclusive jurisdiction, extending to capital cases, within its boundaries. Such a privilege was enjoyed in common with three other corporations. Only the senior courts­of Assize and Nisi Prius- functioned independemly of Mayor and aldermen. The Court of General Gaol Delivery, presided over by the Recorder, with assista nce from the magistra tes, fell temporarily into abeyance after the 183 1 Riots. The court which bore the brunt of judicial work was the Quarter Sessions, normally held before five or six aldermen. It dealt only with the less serious cases, a nd the bulk of the work was done by the Town C lerk who cha rged the jury and pronounced the sentences. The senio r courts were properly conducted and justice dispensed impartially. Discontent was virtually confined to complaints about the crowding a t the Guildhall or the cost of entertaining visiting judges. 41

Most humble in the hierarchy were the Petty Sessions, where the Justices of the Peace dealt summarily with the host of minor infrac­tions. It was here, where the magistrates were the actual judges, that the standard of behaviour was alleged to be low. Ostensibly a n aver­age of four magistrates dai ly attended, but the police often searched hard and long for a magistrate in o rder to lay a cha rge. When none could be loca ted, those a rrested had to be released .48 As will be seen, there were serious lapses in judicial standards.49

Citizens whose creditors would not forgive them their debts found themselves arraigned before one of the civil courts of record under the auspices of the Corporation. Jurisdiction covered all classes of personal action, including ejectment, for an unlimited amount. Sums of less than two pounds were sued for in the Court of Conscience, the commissioners being the Mayor and any two councillors. Perhaps the admira ble recovery rate of 90% was due to the sha rpness of the Registrar, John Hilhouse Wilcox, a former alderman. Retail trades­men also appreciated the value of the Court of Requests, which had competence in amounts up to fifteen pounds. It dealt with some twenty cases weekly, a nd exercised jurisdiction beyond the City boundaries. The commissiOners, who included Common Council­lors, could imprison fo r a maximum of one hundred days. so Only in the two senior civil courts- the T olzey or Sheriffs' Court and its ancient adjunct, the Court of Pie Poudre- were juries employed. About twenty cases came to trial each year, the la tter court being essentially defunct apart from the issuing of processes. The most

4 7 See P.C.C. 1827- 1832, 15 September 1830, pp. 333-334 and "Paul" (pseud.), Epistles on Corporate Proceedings .. . within . . . Bristol (Bristol: n.p., 1836). p. 21.

48 Journal, 11 November 1826, p. 3. 49 Infra , pp. 55-58. ' 0 Scc P.C.C. 18 14- 1820, 9 December 1816, p. 339.

54 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

typical action was that instituted over goods sold and delivered. Edmund Griffiths, a London barrister and steward of the Tolzey, was removed from office in 182 1 for absenteeism. His legal wiles were insufficient to impress the King's Bench, where he took his case for reinstatement. 51 Bristol's panel of civil courts largely con-

I formed to the national pattern, both as regards structure and efficient operation by fee-receiving officials.

These civil courts were no drain on the municipal treasury. This was not so with regard to the two gaols. A protracted argument about financial responsibility had increased animosity between the Corporation and the ratepayers. According to the accounts of the neted penal reformers Howard and Buxton, 52 o ld Bristol prison was the epitome of all that was horrifying and degrading. Public agitation had led in 1820 to the building of a new prison at a cost of £60,000. Newgate, supervised by a well-salaried governor, could house 198 convicts. It was praised in the Municipal Corporations Report as " large, commodious, clean, airy", yet the mortality rate

I was inexplicably higher than in the atrocious old gaol. 53 Debtors had at least been segregated from felons, but the treadmill was still in use, sustenance consisted solely of bread and soup, and recalci-trants were still flogged. Persons detained for questioning, those summarily convicted and the vagrant poor were crowded into the smaller House of Correction (Bridewell). Its nominal capacity was sixteen: often up to forty people, including 25% children, were con­fined in the minute cells. Most strangely, no rules or regulations had been framed: it was entirely the prerogative of the keeper. 5 4

Although the Corporation had been unable to impose on the J citizens the cost of upkeep of the new gaol, it had managed to retain

all management in its own hands. Legall y, the Mayor and the aldermen were the governors. Their duties, which included after 1823 that of official visitors, were discharged quite diligently. In the period under study, £30,000 was spent on Newgate, and £ 12,500 on Bridewell, some of it as a result of riot damage. A few retrograde practices persisted . Among them was the fact that the keeper of the Bridewell also served as police superintendent, and the practice of giving advance notice of visits of the justices, which could well have facilitated the concealment of anything that was amiss. Still , the physical conditions of Newgate earned a '' tolerably good" rating from the Municipal Corporations Commissioners. Only sixteen of the gaols they inspected were placed in this top category.

Owing to the fact that most citizens did not get directly involved

5 1 P.C.C. 1820-1 823, 6 January 182 1, pp. 120-121 and 14 March 1821 , p. 148. 52 The Works of John Hou·ard, vol. 11 ( London. 1791), pp. 189-1 90 and Sir

Thomas Buxton, Bristol Jail, 1818 ( Bristol Tracts, vol. 19). ! J M .C. R: Bristol, p. 32. 54 0n Newgate see Gaols: Reports and Sched ules (B), p. 614, H.C. Journals XIX

(1824) and for Bridcwell, ibid., pp. 616-6 17.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 55

with the maladministration or miscarriage of justice, there was never any popular agitation for reform. The law-abiding section of the populace favoured a stronger police force, but there was no great demand for the removal of anomalies and weaknesses in the applica­tion of justice. Since only a handful of Bristolians saw the operations of the system at first ha nd, there was little chance that its short- 1

earnings would provoke widespread discontent. Those seeking to expose judicial misbehaviour usually had a vested

interest. Charles Walker, who attacked the magistrates in 1820 in pamphlets and in letters in the Mercury, 55 had many years earlier been fined £ 100 on "an undue conviction for assault". In criticizing the Town Clerk, Ludlow, for his chronic absences from judicial duty, Walker may have been smarting under a long-suppressed grievance. He sought to expedite the " cleansing of the Augean stable", but Ludlow, unabashed, continued to spend legal terms in London as well as travel the Oxford circuit. Non-resident aldermen like John Noble in London and Evan Baillie in Scotland flouted the charter with impunity.

No opponent ever so flustered the magistrates as did J ames Acland. A newcomer to Bristol, Acland founded , edited, wrote, and may even personally have sold the Bristolian, Bristol's first daily " newspaper", which frequently changed its name in an attempt to evade newspaper tax. Established weeklies printed only an unembel­lished summary of the evidence and the verdicts at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions. From the first issue on 28 May 1827 Acland commenced detailed, critical reporting of the Petty Sessions. Great affront was taken by the Bench, who expelled Acland after just one day. To avoid falling foul of the Stamp Office, he quickly restyled his paper and omitted all local news. This was fatal for circulation and he hit upon the solution of a twice-weekly news "pamphlet".

This appeared , with a six months' gap, until May 1828, when the magistrates belatedly invoked the law to halt further defaming of their exalted office.

An uncharitable view of Acland is that he pursued "gutter press" tactics, but in fact, he did not descend to innuendo and rumour and "stated facts and named names". The Bristolian's offensive was many-pronged: magistrates were partial to hearing cases at a con­versational level, or even in private rooms; they barred reporters from making notes for publica tion; they often advised the compro­mising of misdemeanours. 56 In the Bristo/ian A eland satirized the court as

a place where the confusion of Babel is admirably imitated but

"C. H. Walker, The Corporation 's Judicial Conduct. 56 Bristolian, 27 June 1827, p. 69. The Mercury (25 J une 1827, p. 3) corroborated

this accusation. A virtually complete set of the Bristolian is held in the Central Library.

56 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

the appearance of cool and deliberate justice dispensed with in most unseemly (not to say indecent) manner. 51

More generally, the behaviour of the Bench was stigmatized as arbitrary and illegal.

Acland 's practice was to press on until checked. He secured the reversal of a sentence of five years' compulsory naval service on a sailor, one Redding, for a technical breach of the importation laws dealing with spirits. In retaliation, Acland and his employees were declared persona non grata within court precincts. He still contrived to obtain reports, so the magistrates imposed more rigorous restric­tions. This suited Acland's purpose. Readers of the Bristolian learned that the magistrates took a surfeit of holidays, occupied over four­fifths of all courtroom space and were guilty of ··civic despotism", "the thwarting of justice", and "consummate treachery" . What riled the magistrates even more than such diatribes, was the ridicule heaped on the idiosyncrasies of the lawgivers. Acland witnessed the Mayor in the Court of Conscience reducing a claim for debt by half because the complainant seemed warm and the oath of a perspiring person could not be given credence. Sir Richard Vaughan was singled out as contemptible and ignorant a nd Fripp the younger as vicious. Vaughan was portrayed as a purveyor of moth-eaten excruciating jokes inflicted on hi s friend Fripp. 5 8 Following a bsence from England in 1828, Vaughan returned to compound with his creditors and resign from the Common Council. In some merriment the Bristolian noted that " the rascally press has had the impudence to publish your name amongst the insolvent". " Why not," said Acland in mock earnest, "prosecute them for malicious libel before a Bristol mayor and jury and thus ensure a favourable verdict?" 59 Fripp was described as a narrow-minded zea lot exhibiting tyrannical tenden­cies a nd an "acidity of countenance". His prying in an "indefatigable search for civic sinners" was lampooned by Acland, who between July 1827 and May 1829 compiled a weighty dossier of "charges" against Fripp, his main target.

A confrontation was inevitable. Never one to shirk what he con­sidered his duty, Acland carried his cause into the camp of his adversaries-the courts. He attempted to indict a court officer for forcibly ejecting him and the Mayor for ordering this "assa ult" . T he magistrates would not sanction a true bill and ironically expelled him from their presence. 60 Acland was no t disconcerted a nd, pursuing the same strategy, in April 1828 indicted Fripp and an officer of the court for having forcibly ejected him .61 Because the Town C lerk charged the jury, the outcome was, as A eland knew,

5 ' Bris/0/ian, 20 June 1827, p. 8. '" Sec e.g. ibid ., 18 August 1827. p. 152. 50 Ibid .. 14 Ja nua ry 1829, p. 138. 60 Ibid .. 18 J uly 1827. p. 274. 61 Mirror, 26 April 1828. p. 3.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 57

predictable. A eland then proceeded to over reach himself by publish­ing a provocative ta ble of what he called the merits a nd dements of the magistrates. Of the twelve, three were "wicked", four "weak", and the remainder variously " vicious", " unfaithful", "unfor tuna te", "worthy" and " on probation" . Individual assessments were ap­pended . George Hilhouse was ' 'one of the subverters of the public rights" and Thomas Daniel had "misapplied the talents entrusted to his care" .6 2

This intemperate act of Acland's played into the ha nds of the Corporation, as it supplied the justification fo r proceedings against him for gross libel. When Acland became available in August 1828 after completing a prison sentence for evading newspaper tax, he went straight before an Assize jury of whom half bore the same surnames as sitting or future members of the municipal body. With­out even the formality of retiring, the jury found him guil ty. Acland then submitted lengthy affidavi ts to the King's Bench protesting a t the fact that his prosecutors were implicated in his judgment. How­ever, he was unable to secure reversal of the sen tence of two months' imprisonment in Gloucester gaol.

Acland's pen was not stilled by detention. First-hand experience sha rpened his accoun ts of the deficiencies of Bristol's Newgate, and he pertinently asked why proceedings were not commenced against the Corporation officers who had sexua lly vio lated the Red Ma ids' gi rls.6 3 On his release Acland issued a pledge to resume his former course if justice was sti ll perverted . However, spells of confinement had curbed his liking for invective and he transferred his a ttention to more vulnerable ill-doers like the light-fingered clerk to the Paving Commissioners. A new series of Bristolians64 were devoid of police intelligence and soon the Corporati on ceased to be an o bject of disparagement. Acland became immersed in Radical, working­class politics and petitioned in September 1829 to be admitted as a free burgess. In a misuse of its powers, the Corporation peremp­tori ly rejected his petition. The pinnacle of his political career came when, wi th a keen eye on restoring flagging circula tion, he offered himself under the Radical banner at the 1830 pa rliamenta ry election. , Among his friends were few freemen, for he polled only twenty-five votes.

The question remains as to whether Acland was a belligerent but cheapjack sensationmonger, o r whether he suffered from delusions of being a reincarnation of Wilkes, champion of the underdog. At 1-!d. a copy, and almost wholly without advertisements, the Bristol­ian was no moneyspinner. At one stage Acla nd w~ote that circula-

02 Brisrolian, 4 April 1828, p. 3. 63 1bid., 20 December 1828, p. 86. 64 Tire Brisrotian: Memoirs and Correspondence of James A eland (in five volumes

25 April 1829-25 May 183 1). Acland moved in 1831 to Hull, where he re-created a version o f the Brisro/ian. a venture which deposited him in prison fo r a further fift een months o n a libel conviction.

r.

58 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

tion was '"approaching I ,000", and he confidently expected that it would soon reach I ,500. The fact is that the paper was so unprofitable that in September 1827 it temporarily ceased publica­tion because Acland, beset by financial difficulties, had to leave the city. 65 His motive was therefore unlikely to have been one of cupidity. His ambitions probably evolved from modest beginnings, stimulated by his delvings into the peculiarities of the Bench and its violent reaction to his columns. He could not have been com­pletely unaware of the possible consequences of his more extreme accusations, and imprisonment merely confirmed, at least in his own eyes, his martyrdom on behalf of the inarticu late victims of injustice.

It does appear that there was some. substance behind Acland's in vective. Accustomed as they were to acting quite arbitrarily, the magistrates could not stomach this free, penetrating and p< rsonal execration. In an issue of April 1828 cited as one of the grounds for libel, Acland recited the tale of the Mayor, Thomas Camplin, and a troublesome dog. Camplin purchased a savage dog to guard his coal supply against the depredations of his household staff. How­ever, when the dog bolted the Mayor declined to pay for the animal o r its collar. Whereupon the vendors summoned Camplin into the Court of Conscience, of which he was the chief commissioner, and he was compelled by his brother magistrates to pay the agreed price. Acland exaggerated but he did not invent. His sense of journalistic integrity may have been deplorable, and his most scurrilous charges can be discounted, but his specific accusations seem to have had a ring of truth. The magistrates obviously felt that their dignity and standing had been impugned to an intolerable degree. Unfortunately we do not know whether he had any beneficial influence on the way that the magistrates behaved. 66

It is somewhat puzzling why Acland ignored the shortcomings of the police system. Even without Acland, public pressure in 1830 coerced the Corporation into considering a radical reform of the police along metropolitan lines. The proposal that control be vested in the Corporation but the financial responsibility be given to the ratepayers was not acceptable and the scheme was shelved. 67

At this juncture it is necessary to consider the Riots of 1831 , as they raise not only the issue of the capability of the police and the magistrates under pressure, but also the broader question of the duties of the Corporation in maintaining peace and order. The cir­cumstances of the three days in October 1831 have been narrated and studied from many standpoints. A wealth of contemporary

65 Sec Prosecution Brief Rex v. Acland, 1828. p. 29: fi le C 11. Plan and Document Book, City Archives.

••one oblique piece of evidence is the tota l ;~lence of the M11nicipal Corporations Report on the Petty Sessions. although all o ther courts were reviewed. One must therefore surrmse approval by omission.

6 7 Rodcrick Waiters. The Establishment of the Bri.1tol Policl' Force. Bristol Branch of the Historical Association. pp. 5, 6

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 59

material exists, most of it in pamphlet form and definitel y biased. 68

The techniques of historical analysis have also been applied to the tragedy.69 Accordingly, in this work there is no need to examine the matter at length. It is, however , necessary to consider the Cor­poration's role in the ri o ts and its defence against the ensuing charges. Almost inevitably the whole affair assumed a highly politi­cal colouring, those who decried the Corporation being almost \ exclusively Whig. However, because of the confusing jumble of allegations and testimony, it is very difficult to be in any way certain about the extent to which the Corporation was guilty of dereliction of duty.

Briefly, it was asserted that the magistrates, forewarned by a prior incident, should have realized that the arrival of Sir Charles Wetherell , a diehard and vocal enemy of parliamentary reform , to open the Court of Gaol Delivery, was likely to incite a disturbance. Nevertheless, they neglected to call out sufficient troops or special constables to quell a ny outbreak, and when the rioting took hold, they not only failed to initiate any organized plan of suppression, but actually declined to order military action. Their paramount con­cern appeared to be the protection of their own lives and property.

Trouble had been expected. As a precaution, a Corporation agent endeavoured to enlist sailors to assist the magistrates in " the admini­stra tion of the laws", and the Recorder was presented with cogent reasons for postponing his formal entry. 70 Both were fruitless, and a lthough one hundred troops were stationed in the city, their pre­sence was rather fooli shly not concealed . A call by the ambitious, intriguing Politica l Union for the resigna tion of the magistrates en masse and the election of the civic authorities on a popular franchise only increased the tension. In some desperation the local authorities placed the regular police force on the alert and enrolled special constables. Volunteers were scarce, and amounted to only 200 " zealous young anti-reformers" and a band of labourers hired as "bludgeon men" a t elections. 7 1 These feverish preparations prove that there was an awareness of the inherent dangers, and a telling point is made by the pamphleteer who argued that by sanctioning

68 A reliable description is W. H. Somenon, Narrarive of rhe Brisrol Riors, with Alfred Harvey, The Brisrol Riors. giving a more removed pictu re. For the military point of view consul t Digby Mackworth, Personal Narrarive of rhe /are evem s in Brisrol . Among those deprecating the Corporation 's role were T. J. Manchee, Origin of rhe Riors in Brisrol and Nehemiah (pseud.), Plain Accoum ofrhe Riors in Brisrol. while the magist rates· apologist was the Reverend J. Eagles, whose pamphlet Brisrol Riors: rheir causes, progress and consequences is factua ll y unsound.

60 Susan Thomas, The Bristol Riots, Bristol Bra nch of the Historical Association, 1974.

' 0 Letter from William Fripp to Cha rles Pinney, 20 October 1831 ; Pinney Papers, Box S2.

71 See J . Lat imer, Nineteenth Century Annals, p. 148 and " Arrangements for the Entry of Sir Cha rles Wctherell 29 October 183 1"; Dakin Papers, Bristol City Archives.

60 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

the Gaol Delivery, the Corporation itself had jeopardized the public peace. 72

Almost co ncurrent with the restoration of o rder, Bristol was en­gulfed by a flood of recriminatio ns, and what a mounted to a witch­hunt began. The magistrates were denounced for having supinely a llowed the rioters to terro rize, plunder and smash. It was alleged that not only did the core of rio ters never exceed 400 in number, but that they were mostly inebriated, changing in personnel and es entially without organized leadership. In such a si tuation, the temptatio n to ma ke political capital was irresistible. For a fortnight loca l papers devoted over half their columns to a rticles and corres­pondence on the matter. A meeting of pro minent Whigs, deciding that there was a prima facie case o f derelic tion of duty, petitioned the Home Secretary, Lo rd Melbourne, for a rigorous enquiry. They then constituted themselves into a committee to assemble evidence. As if conveying its unconcern, o r else paralysed with shock, the Corporation imprudently called no meeting until six weeks had elapsed. Attitudes became less tractable as culprits and capegoats a like were hunted out. Whigs blamed Wetherell 's intransigence and even hinted that "a manageable disturbance" had been fo mented by the Tory authorities; the Corpora tio n accu ed the milita ry com­mander, Colonel Brereton, of ineptly deploying his men and the citizens of refusing to help; Tories tended to blame the Politica l Union, its nebulous middle-class counterpart, the Refo rm Commit­tee, ecret societies nursed by the French government and even Earl Grey's Ministry. 73 Disinterested observers o n the whole seem to have held that , having demonstrated their detestation of Wetherell , the bulk of the crowd disper ed and that but for the intervention of a hooligan element a nd the appalling ha ndl ing of soldiers and people outside the Mansion Ho use, stability would have been regained.

To the amazement of many, the Corporation fo rma ll y approved the magistrates' conduct and then sought to have the a rrested rioters tried befo re Wetherell. 7 4 It met a categorical refusa l from the Government to include either Wetherell o r a ldermen, as this would have enabled "the Corporation to sit as judges in their own cause". Instead, the Government appointed a special commission . The Cor­po ration was then dealt two crushing blows. Edward Protheroe, the Whig M .P. and son of a former Common Counci llo r, introduced a Bill in February 1832 aiming a t opening the municipal body, having its accounts published , and reorganizing the police. 7 s It was soon withdrawn, possibly beca use its sponso r had been made privy to the Government's pla n for a genera l enquiry into all corpo rations.

12 ''An Im partial Citizen ' ' (pseud .), Tire Magistrates of Bristol Brought to tire Bar of Public Opinion ( 1832), p. 3.

73 See Joumal. 3 December 1831 , p. 3 a nd J . Eagle~. op. cit. . pp. 18-19 and 163-164.

' • P.C.C. 1827-1832. I 0 December 183 1. p. 486. On the 1dentity o f the n ot er~ see Susan Thomas. Tire Briswl Rwts.

" Ga: elle, 16 February 1832. p. 3.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 61

Pinney objected to the magistrates being " left up in the air" over the preferring of charges. He received his answer when Melbourne a nnounced that, to ascertain the truth, informa tions had been filed against him a nd ten brother magistrates for neglect of duty. 7 6 Their defence was undertaken by the Corporation in a marked but under­standable reversal of its usua l policy that the Bench and the muni- 1 cipal body were quite separate entities.

As a Whig Mayor in a Tory corporation, Pinney was in an invidious position . 77 He was inevi tably "a mark for the fire of both sides", particularly as during his mayoralty he had "conscientiously declined entangling himself in politics" .78 He was tried in October 1832 before a jury of whom the London Examiner a lleged that ten were ultra-Tories and that seven were magistra tes. 79 The prosecution concentrated on the line that Pinney had failed to use his powers to the full and to issue the o rders necessary to restore tranquillit y. Pinney vanished from sight a nd remained almost incommunicado to the military. His counsel dwelt on the mass defection of citizens and Colonel Brereton's series of blunders. There was little evidence of co-operation under stress of the military a nd civilia n authorities. Immensely impressed by this reci tal of Pinney's helplessness, thejury deliberated for only twenty-three minutes before returning an acquit­tal and appending a rider:

Unsupported by a sufficient force , civil or military-deserted in those quarters where he might reasonably have expected assistance . .. the late Mayor of Bristol acted, according to the best of his judgment, with zeal and personal courage. 80

O thers more culpable knew that Pinney was in some respects a scape­goat, and the Government deemed it futile to proceed against the rest of the Bench.

Possibly the Government was more concerned to demonstrate that it viewed the issue with the utmost severity tha n it was to secure a conviction of specific individuals charged with maintaining the peace. There is no doubt that the magistrates had vacilla ted appal­lingly. Instead of prosecuting a definite plan, they seemed to implore the assembled citizens to produce a strategy for coping with the disorder. Not only did the leadership of the magistrates collapse, but several seem to have been cowards. The chain of command proved to be thoroughly defective. But was this evasion of respon­sibility tantamount to dereliction of duty? What streak of leadership Pinney possessed would have been more encouraged to assert itself

7 o P.C.C. 1827- 1832, 15 February 1832, p. 52 1. 11 For details of Pinney's life see Richard Pares. A West India Fortune (London,

1950), passim. 7R Letter from Mary Ames to Mrs. F. Smith, n.d.; Pinney Papers, Box R 5. 79 A full transcript of the trial is conta ined in The Trial of Charles Pirmey. Esq ..

. . . Mayor of Bristol during the Riots (London. 1833). 80 Ibid .. p. 431.

62 Bristol and its Municipal Go1•ernment 1820-1851

if it had been buttressed by the moral and physical support of his fellow townsfolk.

The question remains as to wha t extent the rioters were venting their mal ice on the Corporation itself. It is readily conceded that the appa rentl y selfish behaviour of the law-abiding populace in not rallying to the call for aid underlined the odium in which the Cor­poration stood. Its conduct could not be excused. But this does not throw light on the motives of those who went on the rampage. The Po litical Union, fearing an outbreak of violence, overtly sought to discourage it on the grounds that it would hand the Tories another stick with which to beat the refo rmers. One of the rioters, later executed, had cursed the Corporation and invoked its downfall. One drunken oath, however, does not constitute a revolution. Of more substance is the fact that the burning of the Mansion House was encouraged by cries o f "i t 's only Corporation property". This signi­fies a lack of amity but ha rdly violent antipathy. Even Manchee in his vigorous anti-Corporation pamphlet Origin of the Riots in Bristol refrained from imputing to the rioters this motive. The dis­orders may have begun as a political demonstration, but this aspect steadily evaporated. That such disorder could have been sustained throughout its course solely by emnity towards the Corporat ion is scarcely feasible. After a ll, to most citizens, the municipal a utho rities were quite remote and extraneous to their everyday lives.

It has been argued, or at least implied ,81 that the riot was pre­meditated. The rejection of parliamentary reform coincided with the arrival o f Wetherell, and together they were exploited as the pretext for a frontal challenge to the Corporation, whose authority had been deviously undermined . It is argued that for its own ends the Po litical Union had stirred the pot until it had "spontaneously" bo iled over and had then offered at a price to help re-establish order. It was not coincidental that Corporation buildings were prominent as the subject of attack. Such a thesis is extremely plausible, but it should be no ted tha t the Corporation epitomized not only municipal government, but a lso authority per se a nd local Toryism. Perhaps middle-class malcontents did mastermind some of the elements of disorder: if their mo tives were locally o riented, however, they were too sophisticated for those who as their supposed agents actually caused such havoc.

As a result of the calamity, there was a clamour for remodell ing the po lice. Seizing the initiative, the Corporation convened a commit­tee to prepare legislation , offered to contribute a liberal annual subsidy, and even disclosed to a public deputation relevant items in its accounts. 82 The parishes, however, were already uniting to

l protect their interests and to foil the imposition of a county rate under the subterfuge of refo rming the po lice. Through their deputies,

"'Sec Susan Thomas. The Briswl Riot.\. Bnstol Branch of the f-hstorical Associa-tton. 1974.

"' P C.C. 18:!7-1832. 10 December 1!!31. pp. 4R7-4RR.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 63

the ratepayers objected most strenuously to being rated for expendi­ture over which they would have had no control. Their suspicion of the Corporation's true motives was not unwa rranted, fo r it en­deavoured to have the repair of Newgate met from a county rate and to frustrate the creation of a stipendiary magistracy exercising \ co-ordinate a uthority with the Bench in the regulation of the police.

The essence of the Police Bill was that the magistrates would undertake the management and the ratepayers provide the money. A strident chorus of dissent from the parishes condemned the whole scheme. Faced with a resolution fro m the Central Committee of Parochial Deputies, elected to safeguard parish interests, the Cor­poration form ula ted what a mounted to a definitive statement of many of the principles it clung to so tenaciously. 83 It maintained that legally the Corporation had no separate discretion over the magistrates, nor they over the municipa l body. While this may have been sound law, it was less germane than the fact that the magi- I stracy a nd the dominant section of the Corporation were one and the same group of men. However , it was asserted by the Corporation that the striking of the proposed rate was entirely the province of the magistrates. Some concessions about the selection and powers of the police commissioners did no t pacify the deputies. They re­doubled the campaign to wring further concessions from the Cor­poration, which was already in retreat. After frank exchanges, the Corporation pledged annual grants of£ I ,500 and £500 respectively towards defraying the cost of the police and the prosecution of felons. lt also agreed to accept continued responsibilit y fo r the prisons. The deputies reacted sceptically. According to the Corporation itself, there was an annua l shortfall between its income and its commit­ments of some £3,000. The deputies therefore felt entitled to know ) how the pledges about fina ncing the police were to be honoured .

Negotiations ultimately foundered over the county rate. In the mind of the deputies it was imperative to avoid the imposition of such a rate, as it could be a precedent fo r opening up "an illimitable field for future taxa tion" completely outside the citizen 's control. 84

There was some feeling that this was exactly the prerogative the Corporation was trying to esta blish, a nd the deputies promised to resist the measure to the end. Since its passage was conditional on mutual concurrence, the Bill was dropped.

Seemingly intent on regaining favour with the citizens, the Cor­poration then established a force of day constables. 85 The twelve­strong fo rce patrolled the streets from 9 a.m. until I 0. 30 p.m. The arrangement smacked of a token gesture, and over four yea rs it took only £2,500 out of the Corporation' s treasury. Rather than such a

8 3 Jbid ., 7 April 1832, pp. 539-544. 84 Mercury. 2 June 1832, p. 3. For attitudes reflected by the press see Roderick

Waiters, Establishmem of the Bristol Police Force, Bristo l Branch of the Histo rical Associa tion, 1975, p. 8.

8 ' Proceedings of Mayor and Aldermen 182 1- 1836. 26 July 1832. pp. 267-268.

64 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1 '

local expedient, it was schemes afoot in London to upgrade the

I municipal police throughout the nation which finally stayed the ha nds of the Bristo l ratepayers from promoting their own Bill.

T o the issue of po lice reform was linked the question of com­pensation for damage suffered in the riots. About each of them it could be asked: how was the operation to be financed? in what way would the Corpora tion's rights be affected? Damage to the Gaol and destruction of the Mayor's Ho use and Bridewell was reckoned to be in the vicinity of £25,000. Liability fell squarely on the city, as the cause was civil commotion. In some haste the Corporation framed a Bill covering the provision of compensation, only to have it rejected by parish meeti ngs as specifyi ng redemption by a county rate, but no t a llowing for settlement by negotiated compromise. 86

As the Mercury put it, there was "a monstrous anomaly" in the Corporation seeking to indemnify itself against losses attributable to its own folly. It was intolerable that the largest claima nt should a lso be a court of a ppeal against the decisions of the compensation commissioners, many of whom were themselves members of the Corporation.8 7 At one bl ow the Corporati on intended to establish

\a county rate, control compensation proceedings and ensure a ' 'most favo urable" considerat ion of its own claims.

Opinion must be reserved on whether the parochial deputies' committee consisted mostly of people "of the most obnoxious description" who were " most hostile to the Corporation". 88 They did excel in browbeating the Corpora tion and pursuing their objec­tives quite remorselessly once the Corporation's resolve was broken. Ultimately, consent was given for the twelve compensation commis­sioners to be chosen by ratepayers, numerous cla ims were withdrawn and liberal concessions resulted in a settlement of the municipal claims at £5,000, only 40% of the agreed actual value of the losses. 89

In addition , the Corpo ra tion subscribed £500 to relieve private sufferers whose claims did not exceed £30. Because of the more co-operative a ttitude of the Corpora tion a nd the persuasive diligence of the commissioners, the claims were pruned from £ 150,000 to £55,824, only a single case going to arbitration.90

I Over the centuries the Corporation, o r in some cases the Mayor and a ldermen, had been designated trustees of numerous cha rities, their endowments producing an annual income of£ 13,000. Many charities in volved no thing more tha n the disbursement of money to deserving categories of citizens; o thers, principally the schools

86 Final Report of the Central Commiittce of Parochial Deputies, 30 September 1835.

8 ' Mercury, 2 1 February and 28 April 1832, p. 3. 8 8 Letter from Jeremiah Osborne to Si r Richard Vyvya n, 10 Ma rch 1832 [?],

Vyvyan Papers. 8 9 See P.C.C. 1832- 1835, I February 1834. pp. 156-160. 9° For further on compensation see G . W. A. Bush. The Old and 1he New.

pp. 222-225.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 65

and almshouses, were functioning institutions. Endowments were supervised by the chamberlain, but no o fficer was cha rged solely wi th their surveillance.

The three cha rity schools whose funds were administered by the Corpora tion were the Free Grammar in Unity Street, the Red Maids in Denmark Street and Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital in C hristmas Street. All were governed by the Mayor and aldermen. Red Maids, established under the will of Alderman Whitson in 1634, catered for forty-one pupils. Its purpose was to train girls in the skills o f domestic servants.91 Aided by the personal interest of Alderman Daniel and his wife, the headmistress conducted the school o n approved contemporary lines. C ramped conditions led in 1830 to a decisio n to rebuild ,92 but ludicrous vacillation followed. Four changes of mind and dithering over specificatio ns meant that little had been accomplished when the Municipal Corporations Act caused suspension of the project. A surfeit of consultati ons and committees produced o nl y a £ 17,000 burden to be shouldered by the new trustees witho ut a ny corresponding tangible asset.

A pleasing impression o f Queen Elizabeth 's Hospi tal wa received by the Cha rity Commissioners o n their visit in 182 1. Accord ing to their report, ' ' Neatness and o rder prevailed ... the healthy appear­ance, respectful demeanour, and the proficiency o f the boys. " 93

Income from manors and a nnuities supported some fo rty pupils, who were given five years' instructio n in the three " R's'' a nd the Bible. Unfortuna tely, the Corporation sullied its reputation by a misappro priatio n of the charity's funds. The confusing sto ry in­volved alleged loans between the Corporation a nd the charity, a nd manipula tio n o f interest rates. The ta ngle was never rea lly unravelled , but the reformed Co uncil in 1842 finally made an unqualified ackn owledgement o f past misdeeds.94

If the handling o f the above endowment seemed to verge o n criminality, the Corpora tion's neglect and irresolutio n in condoning the progressive exploitation and perversion o f the Free Grammar School for priva te gain was utterly immoral.95 As a replacement for the Reverend C. Lee, under whose ministratio ns the ro ll had dwindled to n il, the Reverend J . .1 . Goodenough, a lso connected by marriage to a member of the Corporatio n, was appointed head­master. He plot ted to exclude those classes fo r who m the school

•• For a general his tory sec Waiter A. Sampson. A History of the Red Maids School ( Bnstol: n.p .. 1908).

02 Proceedings of Mayor and Aldermen 182 1-1836. 27 overnber 1830. p. 249. 03 Thomas J . Ma nchce (ed.), Report of the Commissioners for Enquiring Concerning

Charities in England and Wales: The Bristol Charities. vol. 11 ( 183 1 ), p. 26. For a general history see F. W. E. Bowen, Queen Elizabeth ·s Ho~pital , Bristol: the City School (Cievedon, 197 1). pp. 65-67.

0 4 Infra, pp. 155-156. '" For a detailed accoun t sec C. P. Hill. Tire History oj the Bristol Grammar School

( London, 1951).

66 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

was founded a nd to convert it into a fee-paying private institution. Education of the free scholars, whose 4d. entrance fee suddenly increased to £4, was confined to Greek and Latin. The indulgent Corporation a llowed Goodenough concurrently to hold a living in Buckingha mshire. Complaints a bout harsh discipline and inade­quate teaching were not entertained.96

Goodenough a llowed the school to langui sh in the same fashion as had his predecessor: a ro ll of eighty in 18 18 dwindled to nil by 1829. As soon as the C ha rit y Commissioners started to want explana­tions, the 4d. entrance fee was resto red, but the beneficial effect was diminished by the invoking of a regulation declaring ineligible the sons of burgesses residing beyond the C ity limits. Two committees investigating the run-down state of the school produced no tangible results,97 and Goodenough was unable to offer any suggestions.

But the Corporation d id no t merely connive at the educational dismemberment of the Free Grammar School. The School's endow­ment lands were a lso a temptat ion when municipal finances were in difficulty. In 1827 it was resolved that, contrary to what had always been accepted , .. Bar tholomew La nds belongs to a nd is ves ted absolutely in this Corporation in Fee" . Immediately afterwards, £3,083 in 3% consols and £ I ,330 in cash were a ppropriated. This transaction was illegal: in 1837 the new Charity T rustees instituted a successful action for recovery.

Thomas Ma nchee, editor of the Mercury , tried, with sporadtc, unso ught backing from the Bristolian, to bring the Corporation to the bar of public opinion. When a governor indiscreetly pleaded that the bequests were not very large, Manchee fastened on to the implications:

By wha t juggle has the immense property dwindled down to be worth only £40 odd per annum, when the first bequest alone made over 300 years ago was a thousand pounds?9 8

Shortly a fterwards he compiled a dossier which was presented in pamphlet form to the Attorney-General. 99 He argued that the inten­tion of the Corporation was:

to destroy the school so fa r as the education of the children of the poorer burgesses is concerned, and on the ruin, and with the materiel of a charitable foundation, to erect a school for the educa­tion of those who can afford to pay them 50 to 60 pounds a year or 16 guineas a year as day-scholars.

" 6 See e.g. Proceedings of Mayor and Aldermen 1821-1 836. I March 1823. pp. 82·84 and 16 May 1827, pp. 165- 167.

07 P.C.C. 1827-1832, 9 June 1830. p. 321 and 1832- 1835. 15 September 1834, pp. 233-234.

• s Mercury , 21 May 1827. p. 3. •• T . J. Manchec, The Present State oj the Free Grammar School in Bristol con­

sidered ( 1830).

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 67

However, political circumstances were no t propitious, and Man­chee's hopes of precipitating a reopening of the C harity Commis­sioners' investigations were fru strated. This was a pity, because a ll that the Corporation was prepared to do was to pay taxes a nd ra tes on the property and for the governors graciously to visit the premises to hear English and Latin versifying and then partake of "elegant cold collation".

Fifty-seven non-educa tional charities, principally gifts to the poor, were administered by the Corporation. 100 Of these, 80% were funded by endowments worth less than £I ,000, and many of the more modest, such as the gifts to poor maids as marriage portions, had long since been incorporated into general fund s. Charity bequests had fallen out of fashion, but Alderman Ames in 1820 left £I ,200 to clothe the night watch of St. Mary-le-Port and Councillor Weare donated, subject to a life annuity, £ I 0,000 in 1829 to improve certain streets. Cha rities under the contro l of the Corporation which offered accommodation to the poor were Trinity Almshouse (forty-six men and women), Foster's Almshouse (twenty inmates) and Trinity Hospital (twenty-four needy persons).

Donors often specified that the Mayor and aldermen should be governors of the charities and should select recipients. Despite dis­claimers, the Corporation and charity accounts were intertwined, \ so it was no surprise that the latter were never published. When capital was needed, the Corporation found it and repa id itself. No serious irregularities were uncovered by the C harity Commissioners in 182 1- the dubious fin ancial transactions started later. Fully half the Municipal Corporations Report on Coventry dealt with charity infractions; 10 1 that on Bristo l did not even allude to this sector of activities. Self-congratulation may have been warranted, but there was room fo r scepticism about W. Fripp's assertion in 1835 that every farthing of the charity revenue was applied to its proper purpose and that no better method of applying it according to the in tentions of its don ors could be devised.102 The evidence rather suggests that the surplus incomes of the wealthier charities, no tably Sir Thomas White 's a nd Dr. Thomas White's, had been raided to the extent of over £12,000 in the previous five years. Probably this was legal since provision to offset expenses was sometimes made in the bequests. 103 Yet did not the spirit as well as the letter of the bequests need protection?

100 Thc charities are classified as: loan money ( 16); money and gift s to parish poor ( 11 ); miscellaneous ( 11 ); provision of sermons (6); setting the poor to work (4); aid to poor prisoners (4); help to poor tradesmen (3); aid to a lmshouse poor (3); gifts to blind (3); a lmshouses (2); aid for poor lying-in women (2). Some cha rities were multi-purpose.

10 1 S. E. Kerrison, Coventry and the Municipal Corporations Act, p. 138. 102 H. L. Journals, 1835, Evidence of W. Fripp on Munic ipal Corporations Bill,

pp. 41 2-41 3. 103 See Journal 1818- 1835 and ··Paul ... Epistle on Corporate Proceedings. p. 37.

68 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

Because it was expected to be a generous donor to humane causes, the Corporation can pa rtly be forgiven for taking care of its own purse. Those who importuned the Corporat ion were apt to praise it as a bounteous provider, as indeed it could be. After 1820 a less open-ha nded policy prevailed, with donations to non-religious worthy causes averaging only I· 5% of income. 104 The most hand­some donations were made by the Corporation 's own volition, though the Reverend Samuel Seyer's petition for a subsidy for his Memoirs of Bristol was answered with 200 guineas. Little went to fos ter trade or relieve distress. Over the fifteen years £3,570 was allo­cated fo r gifts a nd pensions to former members of the Corporation and· their dependants. (Except for the pi lo ts, no superannuation scheme operated.) As time passed, parsimony became the norm. Adriana Edye, widow of the 1802 mayor, was given a £60 an nuity, whereas the widow of Samuel Henderson, who went bankrupt, was fobbed off in 1826 with a single grant of £.5 despite a plea of "the most wretched circumsta nces". As a ru le; gifts and pensions were far less lavish than those disbursed by the Corpora ti on prio r to 1800. 105

However, there were two glaring exceptions- £800 to the bankrupt former Town C lerk, Samuel Worrall , a nd his family in 1820; and a forty guinea pension in 1825 to Christopher Ludlow, whose si ne­cure, " Inspecto r of Corn Returns, etc.", probably had less connec­tion with his windfall than did the fact that his surname was the same as the incumbent Town C lerk's.

In one field of endeavour, the Corporation was ever solicitous­the maintenance of the Pro testa nt ascenda ncy, particula rly the Established C hurch. It befitted "the most Protestant Corporation in England" 106 to hold advowsons. Liverpool Corporation built churches, endowed clergymen a nd sponsored schools teaching the Anglican catechism. Bristol's Corpora tion spent freely on the Mayor's Chapel, 107 and on diocesan schools a nd voted four £100 a nd one £200 grants to assist in the erection of churches. In this period , it contributed £ 1,800 from its own purse, supplemented by £900 from the Queen Elizabeth 's Hospita l endowment. In supporting the division of the unwieldy pari sh of St. Philip and Jacob, the Corporation donated £ I ,000 to augment the second living. It then threatened litigat ion if its right to present to the new benefice was not conceded .I 0 8 This concern for spiritual welfare may have been

I quite la udable, but activity solely on beha lf of the Anglican church scarcely endeared it to politicized middle-class dissenters.

104 An analysis of do nati ons is: local wo rthy causes£ I , 135: rio ts and bridge £ 1,000: local histories and maps £335; outs ide worthy causes £240: promo ting trade £472: s tatues and clocks £ 160; o the r £20.

10 s See J. La timer, Eighreenrh Cenrury Annals, p. 402 a nd Ninereenrh Century Annals, p. 11 .

100 H. Pearson , The Smirh of Smirhs, p. 193. 10' S upra, p. 44. 1o• P.C.C. 1832-1 835, 22 December 1832, pp. 28-29.

The Func1ions and Activities of 1he Corporation 69

It may readily be assumed that the genuinely public duties o f the Corporation were of little consequence, but this is incorrect: in it was vested a whole panoply of licensing, mspecting and controll ing/ powers. Pi lots, porters, coaches and ferries, attorneys, brokers, and inn-keepers all had their licences issued or ratified by the Corpor­ation. Generally, this was purely a formality. "Nuisances" seemed to abound near hackney stands and despite revision and stricter enforcement of the by-laws in 1832, 109 the complaints did not. abate. Publicans were regularly warned, with meagre effect, against a llow­ing tippling or harbouring disorderly persons.

Fairs, markets, nuisances a nd obstructions were inspected . Spring and a utumn fairs had a reputation for pro fligacy and licentiousness and a token police contingent was sent to restrain excesses.•• 0 Operation of the oyster, cheese, hay and corn markets resulted in a loss to the Corporation, but this was compensated fo r by the receipts from the Exchange and St. James' markets. The Journal alleged in 1826 that the proper purposes of the markets were being perverted in the interest of drawing exorbitant rents from the sheds, standings and boards. Each afternoon, when the genuine traders departed with their scales, hawkers and pedlars of shoddy goods appeared in thei r place. Among the commodities offered were those which led the Journal to comment: "no wonder Bristol is so proverbial for prostitution". 111

More effort was expended on curbing other annoyances. The removal of old buildings a nd o bstructions could be required under the Act of 28 Geo. Ill , c.65 by the two inspectors patrolling the ci ty and the river. Vigi la nce was needed to keep in check such practices as tossing refuse into the Avon, reopening dung holes, failing to repair dilapidated structures and other a nti-social acts such as depositing the carcases of dogs and other animals into the float­ing harbour. On one sweltering afternoon, a tradesman, just fined for a llowing a bale of goods to clutter up the pavement, nearly tripped over a heap of soap boxes outside the Mayor' s warehouse. He la id an info rmation against the Mayor, who was similarly fined. 11 2 Coroner's inquests, on the other hand, were conducted with great efficiency. Within the City limits, some sixty to seventy were held annually. One of the two officials, J . B. Grindon, conducted his hearings on such exemplary lines that he earned praise as "one of the ablest and most judicially-minded coroners o f his day". 11 3

Local bodies of more recent times have often been accused of possessing a " roads and drains" mentality. The Corporation of Bristol in the years being studied was open to the opposite charge: that it did not interest itself in these integral aspects of urban develop-

' 09 P.C.C. 1827- 1832, 14 March 1832, pp. 528-529. 11 0 Sec Journal, 24 February 182 1, p. 3. 1 " Ibid., I April 1826, p. 3. 112 1bid., 24 June 1820, p. 3. I IJ Bristol Times & Mirror, 28 May 1888, p. 5.

70 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

} ment. Streets, street lighting, drains and sewers had been removed from the Corporation's jurisdiction by the 1806 Paving Act. Furthermore, any obligation in respect of drains and sewers was formally denied .114 Questions of public health were never discussed, apart from once in 183 1 when the Mayor and a ldermen were a ppointed to the local Board of Health during the cholera epi­demic.11 5 Hence, involvement was limited to the improving of

I certain streets, usually by the purchase of property or premises as a prerequisite for widening. Except when the passage. of carriages along Broad Street was prohibited to facilitate the use of the G uild-hall, the Corporation was very zealous in upholding the right of the public way. 1 16 Pressure on the water supply was steadily in­creasing, and although the Corpora tion did maintain the Quay Pipe, there was a large measure of indifference to the la menta ble inade­quacy and bad condition of the supply. Even the passing interest taken in the new mode of lighting the city with gas stemmed from

/the need to arbi trate in a dispute between the rival o il and coal-fuelled companies 1 17 rather than from a desire to encourage improvement.

As regards range a nd performa nce and functions, corporations varied quite widely. There was no model against which individual corporations could be assessed . External pressures, personalities and politics all played a part in determining what activities a corporation would pursue. Some seemed excessively concerned with da bbling in secta ria n matters, o thers gave a high priori ty to feasting and pageantry, while others seemed chiefly interested in avoiding any expenditure tha t could not be recovered. Few corporations were pioneers or innovators. Liverpool corporation was attuned to the needs of the time. It widened streets, organized a water supply, and

·even built elementa ry schools.118 Bristol was a mong the group of

[corpora tions which placed most stress on the ma nagement of property and revenues, and allied this with the administration of cha ritable endowments and the enjoyment of frequent dinners. The provision of police a nd the maintenance of law and order was not ra nked very high. The metro polis of the west was engagingly reminiscent of Southampton, where the Corporation " gave no lead, but merely bestowed its blessing when ... proposed developments ... were brought to its notice" . 119

The complex problems of the rapid growth of the third city in England, aggravated by the new industrialism, may have impinged

114 P.C.C. 1823- 1827, 10 December 1823, p. 16. 11 l..Sec D. J. Patterson , The Growth of the Public Health System in Bristol.

1806-75 (n.d.), pp. 8-14. 116 See, for example, rejectio n of a scheme for reducing the width o f Customs

House Avenue ( P.C.C. 1832-1835, 13 March 1833, pp. 78-79). 1 1 7 Commi ttee Book 1819-1 835, Gas Light Bill Committee 1823. 110 Brian D. White, A HistMy oft he Corporation of Liverpool 1835-1914 (Liverpool,

195 1). p. 10. 11 0 A. Temple Pa tterson (ed.), Selection from S outhampton Journals and M inutes,

pp. xvi-xvii.

The Functions and Activities of the Corporation 71

on the awareness of the Corporation, but it gave no indication that it recognized them. It was more concerned with its rights than with l its responsiblities. It did not accept that expansion of its rights ought to be accompanied by corresponding obligations. Admittedly, the) Corporation was constrained by being unable to levy a county rate. All the same, its complacency was unlikely to have been put to flight merely by enjoyment of a much more substantia l revenue. Pre­occupation with internal corporate business, of which the agenda was normally fairly full , was no t compatible with giving serious attention to the problems which were demanding a solution. In any case, the Corporation probably felt that such matters were more truly the province of the Incorporation of the Poor, the Dock Company, the Paving Commissioners and other such bodies. The Corporation had in its own view magnanimously taken an interest in certain matters of public concern, and for a few it actually accepted responsibility. It had, however , never regarded it as its duty to alert Bristol to the problems which were increasingly affecting the city, still less was it prepared to take the lead in dealing with them .

C H APTER FOU R

THE F I N A NC I A L SYST EM

Management of the revenue a nd the right to vote funds was vested in the Common Council, although the Mayor and a ldermen ma naged most charity accounts. At least half the Council had to be present before corpora te property or stocks could be disposed of, and to preclude any hasty, thoughtless expenditure, after 1802 notice of motion had to be given about any sum in excess of £20. 1 As keeper of the purse, the Cha mberla in could still deposit money where he chose: he was no longer permitted to retain large balances per­sonally. 2 Itemized deta ils of income a nd expenditure were recorded in the Journals. Their annua l a udit by some five to eight members of the Corporation, among them usuall y Da niel a nd Fripp, Jr., was underta ken seriously. Nevertheless, it merely confirmed that moneys had been outlaid consistent with the Common Council's desires. As was typical of the time, no systematic watch over fin ance was main­tained. No budget was prepared a nd fina ncial matters per se rarely appeared on the agenda. Indeed, the Corporation did no t have a finance committee.

"Admirable" was the impression the books made on the Municipal Corporations Commissioners. 3 Certainly the records were neatly kept and correctly entered. The nearest thing to an annual account was the Ledger, a n indexed series of unspecified debi ts and credits. This included receipts a nd payments, income a nd expenditure, capital a nd recurring investments and alienations. In relation to the year's transactions, it was deceptive and incomplete. The o ther main record, the Balance Book, seemed designed to aid the Corporation's book-keepers ra ther than provide a reliable sta tement of assets and liabilities. The accounts were shielded from the public, the official reason being that " the Corporation funds were not a public stock". Si xty-seven corporations o ther than Bristol fo llowed th is widespread practice of keeping a nd a uditing, but not publishing, accounts.4

After the Rio ts, an o utside committee- according to Latimer, a self-elected group of influential inhabita nts, nearly a ll closely related to members of the Corporation- was permitted to examine the

1 P.C.C. 1796-1802. 10 March 1802. p. 443. 2 1bid .. 1814-1820, 23 November 1815. p. 61. 3 M .C.R: General, pp. 11 3- 11 4 . • l bid .. p. 97.

The Financial System 73

books and publish an average of receipts and expenditure ( March 1832). Later, when it regained its confidence, the Corporation in 1834 shelved a motion to implement its earlier resolution to publish the accounts. 5 Another product of the Riots was the decision to set up a committee to diagnose and report on the finances. This never reported. Finally in 1835, when it was about to expire, the Cor­poration voted yet again to publish its dealings, but for some un­disclosed reason, perhaps lethargy o r sha me, this was never carried out.

Discounting London, Bristo l's average. income of £18,711 was exceeded only by that o f Liverpool (£90,764) and Newcastle (£43,000). Most of this came from property in some way. This was no t necessarily bad ma nagement so long as the bulk was derived from rents rather than sales.

PRI NCIPAL SOURCES OF

Rents Markets Renewa ls Town Dues Sales o f property Cha rities Estates a nd Manors Burgess money

ET R ECEIPTS 1820-1 8356

(per cent) 25 2 1 17·5 11 8 7 6·5 I

Over 75% of income o riginated directly or indirectly from property and rents. This provided a stable and secure but essentially inelastic fund . Town dues constituted the only other genuine income, but after their revision in 1825,1 they returned below half their former yield . From 1830 receipts soared , bringing in on average another £5,000 a year, as the Corporation reso rted to questionable expedients to hold the deficits in check.

The most lucrative source was alienation of the esta tes which brought in £22,500 in the last four years. A number of loans were also raised: from 1825, £54,000 was borrowed for such projects as the Council House and the cattle market. Such expenditure was justifiable, but the prospects of these projects producing any sub­stantial revenue were slender . For many years the cattle market receipts sufficed only to pay in terest charges and ultimately the capital was redeemed from other income.

The appropria tion of the charity surpluses has already been men­tioned. 8 Of the £25,000 so taken a fter 1820, much was quite properly due to the Corporation as interest payments a nd such like. Because

5 P.C.C. 1832·1 835, 2 August 1834, p. 219. 6 Calculated from the annual c redit stock balances entered in the Ledger 18 18- 1835. ; S upra, pp. 48-49. • S upra. p. 65.

74 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

the municipal and charity finances were like two identical but tangled fishing lines, it is a lmost impossible to distinguish between them. Latimer presumably used some method in calculating that £16,000 had been misappropriated.9 It is fairly clear that dealings in the Bartholomew lands and rents and interest received from the Queen Elizabeth's Hospital were illicit. After 1830 there was a chronic short­age of liquid assets and the realization on property would have produced disastrous financial results in the long run. As it was, in the final year rents had declined by £500 from the 1832 level and interest payments had climbed by £700. 10

If the o ld Corporation had not come to an end in 1835, it could have pursued a number of different incomes policies. It could have con tinued to dispose of real estate until this was exhausted. Alterna­tively, it could have continued to borrow. It could have tried to economize, although here it did no t enjoy a completely free hand. Finally, it could have sought additional sources of income. In fact , the outlook was gloomy: raising the rents from its manors or from ma rket stalls might have been counter-productive. The municipal port dues were tied to the sta te of trade a nd their legality was being challenged. A county rate was the true solution, fo r it would reflect growing wealth and could easily be adjusted. However, public opinion was implacably hostile to the idea of a select body being given access to such revenue, and without this the Corporation could look only to prudent management a nd simple economies to raise its own effective income.

In proportion to each other, the principal categories of expendi­ture remained relatively stable.

Only two corpora tions, Liverpool (£ 106,446), and Newcastle

PRINC IPAL ITEMS OF NET EXPEND ITURE 1820- 1835 11

Ordinaries 12

Extraordinaries 13

Officers' salaries Prisons Interest Council House Mayor's a llowance Sheriffs' a llowances Mayoral ty House

0 J. La timer, Nineteemil Cemury Annalf. p. 126.

(per cent) 13 12 11 11 9 7 5 5 4

• 10 Sec supra, pp. 62-64 in connec11011 w1th the repayment of not cla1ms and establish­ment of an effective police.

11 Calculated from the annual deb1t :.tock balance~ entered m the Ledger 1818- 1835. 12 Pelt) disbursements, minor repairs. rate!., ta~cs, votes of \\ine, normal law

charges. :.ome salaries. 13 Donations. entertainment:;, 'pecial la" cha rge'

The Financial System 75

(£43,000) spent more than Bristol's average of £23,253. 14 The new Council House and the redemption of the land tax, as well as the consequences of the Riots, stopped any return to the pre-1 826 level of expenditure (approximately£ 17,000). Neither entertainments nor Jaw ·charges appeared as such in the stock balances, but this was a mere quirk of accounting. About 8%, no t an excessive proportion, could be debited to entertainment. 1 5 However, it was a different case with the law charges, which averaged 11 · 5% of spending. Much of this was abnormal, as for example actions against the Incorporation of the Poor (£ 1,750) and against non-freemen merchants (£2,000). Almost £2,500 was consumed by the defence of the Mayor and magistra tes against cha rges arising from the Riots.16 Interest pay­ments rose relentlessly, and despite renegotiations leading to a reduc­tion of the rate to 4%. by 1835 this item accounted for nearly 15% of income.

G RAPH OF NON-CA PITA L INCOME AND EX PEN DITU RE 1820-1 835 1 7

£30,000 Incom• --- Exp•nd itur•

;"-£27,500 I \

I \

£2 5,000 I \

I \ ,, I \ £22,500 " I \ I \

I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \

£20,000 I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ ,j

£17,500 I 'v I I

£15,000

£12.000

£10,000 0 N M ~ ., ID e-. .., 01 0 .... N M ~

N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M CIO .., .., .., CO .., CO .., CIO

.., CO CO CO CIO CIO

14 For a comparison see A. T emple Patterson. Selection from Southampton Journals and Minutes, p. xiv.

1 5 Supra, pp. 44-45. 10 Journal F 1825-1 832, f. 50 I. 17 Calculated from annual stock ba la nces in the Ledger 18 18- 1835, major capital

items omitted.

I I

I

., M ..,

76 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

Above a ll , there were two crucial characteristics of the expend iture. First, even a fter including a ll non-ca pita l transact ions, the picture is o ne o f income perpetually lagging behind expenditure. Second ly, " pu blic services" i.e. functio ns o f the Corporatio n which directly affected the publ ic, did not receive the la rgest sha re o f the income. One autho rity 18 has calcula ted tha t o nly a d windling pro po rtio n 19" 0 in 1780 , 13° 0 in 1830- o f the o utlay o n public services in Bristol was a ttributable to the Corpo ratio n. These figures were assembled in suppo rt o f Miss D. M. Livock's thesis tha t changes in municipal financial o utlook could have o nly marg ina lly improved public services. Of equa l re levance is the modest proportion of the Cor­po ra tio n's expenditure which was channelled into the upkeep of public services. A libera l estimate puts the pro po rtion a t 40°

0, a

more stringent one a t o nly 25° o·

CORPORATIO I COME D EVOTED TO P U BLIC SE RVICES

Officers· salaries Gaols Extraordina ries Public Buildings Allowances Do natio ns Police Drawbridge

(per cent) 11 11 6·5 5 5 2 I I

Of the most costly services and a menities, the poor, the police (except fo r the special a nd post- 1832 daytime forces), paving, light­ing. d ra inage, the po rt, and in part . the courts, were fin anced fro m o ther sources. Only the gao ls, drawbridge, a nd in pa rt, the courts a nd police were paid fo r by the Corpora tion. Little was do ne by the Corpora tion to assist deserving ca uses or to expa nd its pro perty ho ldings (2· 5° o and 2"0 o f expenditure respectively). When accused o f misusing its funds, o r o f being an invetera te spendthrift , the Corporation invaria bly replied that its funds were no t a public stock, especia lly as 75° o was derived fro m pro perty. Second ly, it claimed tha t substan tial capital expenditure was being incurred o n public edifices such as the ma rkets and gaols. T hirdly, it maintained that as lo ng as it was denied a county ra te, its income was tota lly unable to underwrite a ny additional majo r public services. None o f this was taking refuge in sophistry. Subject to certa in restraints, priva te indi­viduals, businesses and societies have always had the right, not the privilege, o f a llocating thei r wealth to wha t purposes they deem fit. As regards the Corpo ra tio n, everything h inges o n the questi on

1" D. M. Livock. 1- .C.A .. in an unpubli shed paper. "A tinanc•al apprmsal of an

m<.llctmenl or the a nc1en t co rporation of Bmtol ··

The Financial System 77

of its public na ture. Convicting it of reckless or foolish spending of funds is quite a different matter from convicting it of squa ndering or misusing funds held in trust for the public.

Deficits ranged between £390 ( 1823) a nd £30,008 ( 1827), a lthough surpluses were recorded in six years. After subtracting these, the Corpora tion was still embarrassed to the extent of £78,878 in the period reviewed. Since expenditure exceeded income by 25%, any funds which were accessible were snapped up. In times of difficulty, ca pital asse ts were realized , 19 a nd so long as the bankers did no t demur, overdrafts were utilized . Latimer reckons that they often exceeded £ I 0,000. 20 In 1830, the Cha mberlain, chronically short of ready cash, had to borrow £2, 500. So long as the investo rs retained confidence, the Corporation made use of the priva te money market.

IND EBTED ESS TO BON DHOLDERS 1820-1 83521

(to nea rest £) 1820 39,896 1822 39,896 1824 39,896 1826 46,046 1828 56,046 1830 66,996 1832 77,416 1834 85,3 13 1835 89,300

The trend is quite explicit , even if the ba ld fi gures tend to conceal mitigating circumstances. Of the debt, for example, £3 1,256, had been accepted on condition tha t interest be paid perma nently to a designated cha rity. Prio r to 1826 a comforta ble credit ba lance appeared in the accounts, but the compulsory transfer of £ 17,000 to the Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital account 2 2 helped produce a debit balance of £43,500. Had the Corporation at its expiry tried to settle all accou nts, it would have been £57,250 short of meeting commit- \ ments. 23 If the dubious £20,828 credit wi th Queen Elizabeth 's Hospi-tal been trea ted as a debit item, an adverse bala nce exceeding £ I 00,000 would have appeared . Of course, bankruptcy was not impending, as the Corpora tion had large estates, but liq uid liabilities \ substantially exceeded liquid assets.

Bristol had no t degenerated into a no ther Coventry, where the Corpora ti on laboured under fi nancial malpractices, but some

19 Supra, p. 43. 20 J . Latirncr, Nineteelllh Century Annals, p. 126. 2 1 Abstracted from the Balance Book 1818-1835. 22 Supra, p. 65. 23 Balance Book 18 18-1 835, p. 67.

78 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

features- a heavy reliance on rents, exorbitan t legal expenses, re­course to charity " borrowings" and sho rt-term loans, crises tided over by members o f the Corporation advancing personal funds were common to both. So consonant was Bristo l's fi nancia l condition wi th the conclusions embodied in the Municipal Corporations Report that it could have served as a model:

a great pa rt (of the revenue) is usuall y absorbed in the salaries of o fficers and (in) entertainments ... . It is not often tha t much ... is expended on police o r public improvements. T he debt ... is o ften extremely heavy. In some the payment of the interest absorbs a large proportion of the revenue. 24

At fi rst sight, the Corpora tion seemed very vulnerable to criticism, but its critics were ha mpered by the fact tha t it would no t admit that its funds belonged to the inhabitants, or to the ra tepayers. Furthermore, since they were denied access to records, a ll they could do was to engage in speculation, to seize on specific items they could glean, o r to hold their tongue. For all his hard work, even Kington was reduced to branding certain spending as " lavish' ' o r " reckless". Assert ions tha t sala ries could be reduced by half with­out harm o r hardshi p, while plausible, were still gli b and facile. He ela bora ted on neither the property system of leases fo r lives, with its fl uctuating income, no r on the wha rfage to lls which had been transferred to the Merchant Venturers for a nominal renta l. 25 In essence, he damned the Corporat ion for o ther. more resounding evils. 26 Likewise, a t the Municipa l Corpora ti ons Commission hearings, those who appointed themselves counsel for the prosecu­tion lacked ha rd da ta. 27 Without the fin ancial records, they could proceed little further than the bland strictures expressed so faithfully in the Commission 's Report . Ma nchee, a rmed wi th the Cha rity Com­missioners' findings and papers, was infinitely more devastating in exposing abuse of charity funds and endowments.

Somewhat ironically, the most incisive assault on fi nancial management came posthumously. In the context of deplo ring the insta lla tion of fo rmer members of the Corporat ion in prominent posi tions on the refo rmed Council , " Pa ul" in 1836 reopened King­ton 's line of attack.28 " Pa ul " was severe on unj usti fied spending "at the moment the charter was about to be taken from the Corpor­ation", ci ting a d inner where twenty participa nts no t only consumed thirty-five bottles of wine, but had thei r ho rses fed at corporate expense. The tra in of paid servants, the eight p rincipal annua l

'4 M.C. R: General, p. 32.

' 5 J . B. Kington. A Burgess 's Letters. letter 5. p. 45. 20 Supra, pp. 23-24. " Infra, pp. 97-98. '""Paul" (pseud.). Eptstle.l on Corporate Proceedmg.1 and Mumcipal Alfwrs

Generallr nulun the City and Port of Brwol.

The Financial System 79

d inners, the mutua l excha nge of gifts a mong Mayor a nd sheriffs a ll caught " Paul's" roving eye as symptoms of prodigality.

He was most merciless about the accumula tion of debt to over £ 11 0,000. Neither the borrowing of £45,736 since 1823 no r the extra­ordinary " income" of £64,472 could be condoned, he insisted , even if an infla ted a mo unt of £85,000 was set against improvements. 29

" Paul" in some und isclosed fashion calcula ted that the Corpora tion's assets were a paltry £ 14,000, while its liabi lit ies topped six fig ures. This tendentious balance sheet and its untenable deduction that " Bristo l was £ 100,000 worse off fo r having had a closed corporation" tarn ished an o therwise sound case. As it ha ppened, "Pa ul" was la rgely fl ogging a dead horse- the Corporation had by then come to an end and its disbur ements were mainly irrecoverable. Yet he d id confirm impressions of fina ncial incompetence and monetary manipulat ion. When ex-alderman Hilhouse pi t ifully explained tha t because ready cash was usually such a scarce commodity, members of the Corporat ion and their servants a nd officers would step into the breach, " Pa ul" plunged home the knife:

And when you plead as a n excuse ... tha t the bankers o f Bristo l refused to advance the Corpora tion a penny unless the Aldermen would come down and give persona l security fo r its repayment . .. you have contrived to heap mo re censure on their heads than could otherwise be devised by a ll the imaginations of a ll their enemies. 30

It can be cogentl y a rgued that the Corporation's surveilla nce o t its fin ancial affairs was elementa ry and its disposal of property inj urious. Nevertheless, it did ma nage to stay afloat, and in fact , to pass on to its successor a ha ndsome legacy of real esta te. M is­handling a nd squandering one's own funds is fa r less culpable tha n indulging in ident ical practices with public funds held in trust. T hus the card inal issue of the nature of the Corporation 's stock mani­fests itself, and no uneq uivocal a nswer is possible. Even the theory that assumption of public duties renders the wealth possessed public stock is no t particula rly applicable.

It may be objected that the Corporation 's ruling philosophy was to retain a grasp on the contro l of Bristo l's affa irs wi thout accepting the correspond ing responsibility for what transpired. T o this the retort would be that the Corporation shrank from putting to private purposes funds obtained from the public, and, fu rthermore, that as its richest sources of income were private in origin, their d isposal was "vested entirely in the Corporation in fee". Viewed legall y, the Corporation was an example of a split persona lity. The questi on which beset it was whether it could a rbitrarily function as a pri va te institution without detrimenta l repercussions on its public duties.

29 Ibid .. pp. 33-34. JO Ibid .. p. 28.

- ----·-· ...... ....._ -

CIIAPllR l-IVE

THE OLD SYSTEM REVIEWED

In order to assess the Corporation, it is necessary to know what kind of body it was, and where responsibility for various public functions lay. Certain of these were clearly laid upon such bodies as the Incorporation of the Poor. Nor must the Corporation be blamed for not performing functions which were not reckoned to be a public matter. The basic issue is whether it was a private body which happened to oversee a limited number of public services or a public instit~tion which incidentally carried out a number of private activities.

Before answering this question. tt should be affirmed that any organization which undertakes publtc functions must be prepared to submit itself to scrutiny and cannot plead that the funds expended do not come from the public purse. Nor can it defend itself simply by asserting that the public functions it performs are not enjoined on it by law, but arc the result of its concern for the public good. Often the Corporation resorted to this tactic.

It cannot be taken for granted that there existed in Bristol "a General Governing Body of the Borough". Admittedly the Corpor­ation at times appeared to play such a role, but this it rarely acknowledged. It could justifiably point out that it had not been invested with the requisite authority and that its boundaries in any case enclosed less than 50"" of the population. Thus, the only logical way to assess its performance is to consider it on three levels.

a. Performance in public matters taken under its wing. b. Performance as a semi-private organi7ation. c. Performance in relation to possibilities and needs.

It ts pertinent that most public services had either been transferred to, or vested in, other bodies. The regulation of the poor, the collec­tion of rates, water and gas supply, sewerage, drainage, paving, and the management of the port were all in this category. Over such bodies the Corporation had in theory significant innuence, but this was often weakly exercised. For only a relatively limited section of local needs -charities, law enforcement. licensing and inspection, regulation of buildings was the Corporation or the aldermen formally responsible. Here its record wa stained. Those with the best interests of the Free Grammar School or Queen Elizabeth's Hospital at heart had little reason to praise the Corporation's

The Old System Reviewed 8 1

management. U nblushing connivance in the perversio n of the na tu re of the Free G ra mmar School a nd systema tic misappropriation of the Hospital endowment d id no t rebound to the Corpo ratio n 's cred it.

In the matter o f law a nd o rder the record was mixed . T he two penal insti tut ions were managed respectably. Justice was d ispensed in a variable manner. O n the Bench there were some whose removal was desirable, but on the who le the judiciary' s frailties were to lerable. This was not so with regard to the po lice. In turbulent times, the Corporatio n sought to excuse itself fo r the inefficiency of the police by insisting that the magistrates, over who m it had no separa te discretio n, were respo nsible. Such a lame excuse was unconvincing. A radical reform of the po lice could have been facilita ted , no t impeded , by the dual cha racter o f the a ldermen. Despite Pinney's acquitta l a fter the Rio ts, the reputation of the aldermen as super­intendents of the po lice was somewhat ta rnished.

There is no evidence that the comprehensive licensing and inspect­ing fu nctions enjoyed by the Corpora tio n were exercised in accord­ance with any overall conception of the development of Bristol. These functions were pursued in an essentia lly negative and tradi­tional manner, that is, of the watching task of the prevent ion a nd removal of nuisances. Since only two officers were engaged in this work, their a bility to detect and deter such unsocial activit ies was severely limited.

As a provider of a menities, the Corporation d id not und uly exert itself. O nly a tiny fraction o f its inco me a nd assets was d iverted to charity purposes. Benefact ions to worthy causes, apart from the Esta blished Church, were neither frequent no r munificent. It spent a t least eig ht times as much o n ceremo ny a nd feas ting as was dis­bursed o n laudable, loca l objects. As far as can be ascertained, it never purchased la nd for development into parks. In the 1770's and 1780's the Corpo ra tio n of the time had actively a betted the exclusion o f citizens from the city lib rary.• This a lienation was acq uiesced in , and only when the a udacious Li brary Society in 1826 t ried to effect the complete removal of public books from the shelves 2 was a stand taken.

In the provision of public services, the Corporation 's ro le was modest. Only 25\ of its revenue was so a llocated , a nd o f the total outlay from all so urces o n public services in Bristol, o nly 13° 0 came from the Corporation. Clearly the bulk of public ervices were being sustained from o ther sources. Admittedly, the Corporatio n would have needed to expand its income q uite rad ically in order to broaden the range of public services it provided . Yet the impressio n is gained tha t it relied o n thi s situa tion to a bsolve it fro m a ny o bliga tio n to a llevia te mo unting socia l and physical pro blems.

1 Sec Charles Tovey, A Free Library for Bristol: With a History of the City Library (London, 1855).

' P.C.C. 1823- 1827. 24 June 1826, pp. 266-267.

82 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

A myopic atti tude towards emerging needs, indifference towards improvements and tolerance of defective services were by no means unique to the unreformed Corporation. But the Bristol Corporation probably stood higher in its own esteem than did any other such body. The opportunity was there to look beyond side-issues like prestige and to adopt a more positive approach towards the onset of new urban problems. On balance, the Corporation shrank from this cha llenge. As in Southampton, " the progress of the town mainly took place independently of[the Corporation]". 3 A specific rejection of obligations in respect of drains and sewers has already been noted. Similarly, streets and the water supply were adjudged to have no legitimate place in the Corporation 's deliberations. From D. J . Patterson's monograph , " The Growth of the Public Health System in Bristo l 1806-75",4 it can be inferred that during the period under review, such ma tters impinged on the Corpora tion only when epidemics raged.

Perhaps condemnation of the Corporation for not being an insti­tutional forerunner of Edwin C hadwick should be tempered. But even over trade- a matter about the importance of which local commercial opinion was unanimo us- the Corporation 's attitude was negative.

it is t rue that membership of the Corporation reflected the city's mercantile nature, but there was no corresponding concern over the sagging import trade and the failure of merchant firms. Bristol 's interests were secondary to the Corporation' s own vaunted rights, as was clear in the clash in 1825 over the town dues. 5 Financial encouragement of trade was very perfuncto ry. To complaints that although three-fifths of the municipal dues had been surrendered, port levies in general were still crippling trade, came a specious reply - the Dock Company and the Mercha nt Venturers were not amen­able to municipal direction. 6 Quite justifiably, the Municipal Cor­porations Report reserved its severest censure for the Corporation's to rpor over trade. The Corporation might decla re that the causes of business failures were beyond its control, but its influence could have been used to slow down or reverse the trend whereby in 1833 87% of all foreign produce consumed in Bristol was transhipped from London and Liverpool. 7 Because its abi lity to intervene effec­tively deteriorated, the Corporat ion a lso seemed to give up any a ttempt to use its considera ble influence.

Finally, how did the Corporatio n speak for the ci ty and exercise vigilance as its steward? Addresses at first conveyed by costly depu­tations and later by M.P.s were presented to the Crown on the occasion of a royal death, accession, delivery or recovery. In its

3 A. Temple Pattcrson, Selection from Southampton Journals and Minutes. p. xvii. 4 Undated typescript in the University of Bristol Medical Library. s Sec M .C. R: Bristol. pp. 60-74. • P . . C. 1827- 1832, 14 Ma rch 1832. p. 533-535. ' Mirror. 12 October 1833, p. 3.

The Old System Reviewed 83

professions of loyalty and attachment, the Corporation was never less than fulsome. Not that the sentiments were a lways mawkish platitudes: woven in were pledges to uphold the established order. Social unrest and outbreaks of violence in 1820 provoked a wordy response:

Whilst every excitement to Sedition a nd Anarchy is held out by a desperate Faction by the promulgation of Doctrines equally subversive of our Religion, our Laws and our unrivalled Con­stitution we feel it a duty incumbent on us to declare to your Majesty our firm determination to use every exertion in our respective Stations to counteract the efforts of the seditious and recall the misled to a proper sense of their duty a nd real interests. 8

Sometimes strands of partisanship showed through, none more glaring than when the king was petitioned no t to extend the fran­chise to Roman Catholics until Parliament was dissolved. 9 There was no intention of articulating or echoing the view of the populace: quite the contrary, as any aspiration to be the voice of public opinion could have prejudiced the Corporation 's right to communicate its own unsullied views. evertheless, few if any addresses aroused counter-action, so it must be assumed their content was consonan t wi th the feelings of politically-minded citizens as a whole.

Over proposed legisla tion the Corporation took umbrage if it was not consulted. Promoters of local Bills were advised to delete before the first reading clauses objectiona ble to the Corporation. Threats to abandon jointly-sponsored measures often procured the desired amendments. Very large amounts were spent on promoting o r opposing loca l legislation: £ 1,527 was spent between 1822 a nd 1825 on an Incorporation of the Poor Bill, £I, 165 on the Town Dues Bills of 1824-1 825 and £571 on the Police Bill of 1832. 10 Altogether, the Corporation concerned itself with twenty-three measures, of which three related to other areas and eight implemented general government policy. Twelve dealt with Bristol, and of these the Corporation promoted seven alone or in concert with others.

In busying itself wi th legisla tion, the Corporation had two motives. Certain measures beneficial to Bristo l, such as the Gas Light Bill of 1823, the Clifton Suspension Bridge Bill of 1830 and the Great Western Railway Bill of 1834 were all backed by petitions from the Corporation. However, the overriding aim was to prevent any under­mining of corpora te rights. Of the sixteen Bills which did not emanate from the Corporation, twelve were opposed. These rights were often broadly interpreted, and both the Licencing Bill of 1822 and the Sugar Duties Equa lizat ion Bill of 1823 met with disapprova l.

A P.C.C. 1820-1823. 6 December 1820, p. 37. 9 lbid .. 1827-1832. 11 March 1829, pp. 169- 172. 1° Calculated from Journals E 1817- 1825 and F 1825-1832.

84 Bristol and its Municipal Go1•ernment 1820-1851

Another tactic was to approve Bills subject to receiving a guarantee that no infringement of the Corporation's rights was intended . In some of the Bills initiated by the Corporation, 11 the principal aim appeared to be either the enlargement of powers or the reinforcing of suspect titles. Since so many of its own prerogatives were not clearly based on statute, the Corporation was well aware of the devastation that legislation could cause.

Despite being the subject of contempt and ridicule, ~he Corpor­ation had many redeeming features. Continuity of membership was maintained, and the group of novices was always tiny. The slothful, dishonest or bad were not the common stock from which members of the Corporation sprang. Most of them were upright, energetic and unsmeared by malpractice. Collectively and individually they contributed a lot to Bristol's prosperity. As a Corporation they transacted business with amity and unity. Daniel and his proteges watched paternally over affairs without the extremes of absolute rule. To depict the Corporation as a body of aged nonentities, or servile minions who voted like puppets, or as vacuous seat-fillers is a cruel parody. The Webbs maintained that they were chiefly notable for "a supine neglect" of all the public interests of the city, 12 but this was not true of them individually, and it seems unlikely that they underwent a complete change when they met as a body in Common Council.

It would be idle to pretend that the shortcomings of the Cor­poration were of :ittle account. Yet, in mitigation, it should be stressed that many of these were external and beyond its control. In the first place, there was the sheer magnitude of the task of trying to provide adequately a full range of services. In retrospect , it is easy to perceive the problems which were calling forth the need for such services. Even if the Corporation had been blessed with almost superhuman insight about what urbanization portended, it did not possess the basic structure and forces to devise and imple­ment coherent policies.

Then again, its boundaries were outmoded and the necessary authority dispersed. Many of the poor moved away from the City to escape various local rates.• 3 The Municipal Corporations Report emphasized that rationalized boundaries were an essential prerequi­site of progress, and it advocated inclusion of the entire parlia­mentary district within the new borough. 14 It is doubtful whether either the adjoining counties or public opinion would have tamely allowed the Corporation as then constituted to annex the built-up "collar" of Bristol which so constricted it. Also very germane was

11 Viz., Town Dues Bill 1824: Cattle Market Bill 1828: Compensation and Police Bills 1832.

1' Sidne)' and Beat rice Web b. The Manor and 1he Boroul(h , Pt. I. p . 470.

1 3 Supra. p . 13. 14 Af.C.R · Bris10/. p. 39.

The Old System Reviell'ed 85

the diffidence of central government. Mandatory general legislation was a novelty. Very little emanated in the way of moral exhortations, let alone financial support. Westminster's and Whitehall's interest in local affairs, apart from the preservation of law and order, was only beginning to awaken. So those in charge of town and county were neither prodded nor enticed into modernization . In a ny case, by the nineteenth century the government had evidently ceased to hold corporations, apart from their magisterial component, answer­able for the management of boroughs.' 5 Certainly the Corporation of Bristol did not look on the government as its taskmaster.

As regards the Corporation's internal condition. it was not well placed for coping with burgeoning public problems. Common Council meetings were habitually poorly attended. Not only did this concentrate the burden but it encouraged domination by the most ambitious and energetic. Moreover, there was too much to do: running businesses, political parties and community organizations was incompatible with mature probing of Bristol's problems and charting its future course. It would be unreasonable to seek for such new-fangled therapeutics as management by objective, a chief officers' team and budgetary control in an early nineteenth-century unit of local government. But there are some more enduring prin­ciples of organizational management of which the Corporation seemed rather oblivious. Only those involved knew whether there was any policy in the selection of officers. Internal promotion is not necessarily wrong, but it tends to nurture already dominant charac­teristics. In Bristol's case, reliance on internal promotion did little to disturb a somewhat slack sense of duty. In addition, there was the absence of any planned supervision. This made possible the mis­demeanours of a number of Chamberlains. The dozing or intoxicated night watchmen, the absentee officials and the inept nuisance inspec­tors did not inspire confidence. It was also alleged that the Cor­poration was bursting with supernumerary officers useful only for display. 16 The error made was of not taking any systematic interest in the structure and operations of the employed staff. Only when things went wrong did the Common Council give this much attention.

Certain aspects of the Corporation's structure constituted a definite Aaw. The committee system was the foundation of its activi­ties, yet it suffered from two serious drawbacks. Most importantly, the finan ce (or executive) committee had fallen into abeyance; secondly, the distribution of the work-load among members of the Corporation was uneven. No committee was charged with under­taking a regular revision of current policies. The practice of choosing as Mayor the senior common councillor was unsound, given the heavy demand made on the chief dignitary. To this point it could

' 5 Sidncy and Beat rice Wcbb. The Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 . p. 287. 16 See J. B. Kmgton, A Burge~s ·s Le11ers. pp. 174-194 and " Paul" , E{nstles 0 11

Corporate Pro<·eedmgs, pp. l6-l S.

86 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

be rejo ined that this was irrelevant, as the aldermen were the real rulers a t both the local (ward) and central (Common Council) levels. This privileged group, unlike the Mayor was a nswera ble only to itself.

Of a ll the structural fea tures, the practice of self-election fo r life invites the most scathing criticism . 1 7 The select principle was not devoid of logic. If the Corporation 's raison d 'ime was to administer its esta tes and transmit these, together wi th its "sacred rights a nd privileges", to its successors in perpetuity, then it was essential to hand-pick the next set of gua rdians. A select body would no t be subject to the carping restrictions imposed by an electo ra te interested only in economy and low rates. The fact remains that self-election was in conflict with the liberalization of the electorate. At a time when representat ion was percolating ever downwards, it was a provocative anachronism.

Those elected for life a re liable to become complacent and indolent: self-election encourages illusions of omnipo tence and infallibility and can open a breach with " the community". In Bristo l's case, it restricted the pool from which ta lent could be drawn. Exclusiveness, pa rty domina tion and the sullied reputation of the Corporation combined to warn off many prominent citizens of proven business a bility. O n the principle o f like attracting like, self-election is apt to perpetuate the traits uppermost in the institution concerned. How far self-election erected a n unscaleable barrier between the Corpor­a tion a nd the populace will be considered la ter. T here can be no doubt that th is very question- the exercise of public powers by an irresponsible body-was the spearhead of numerous attacks on the Corporation. Even more profoundly, it was a chief determinant underlying the Corporation 's behaviour.

The Corporation 's funda mental creed could be summed up as follows:

As an essentially private body our firs t charge is to administer our inherited assets and affairs as we deem fit , not subject to outside scrutiny o r externa l direction. O ur rights and privileges a re a bsolute unless freely abrogated or removed by sta tu te, a nd as such, in any conflic t take precedence over any public trusts we have agreed to bear. In the event of a ny a ttempted infringe­ment of our rights o r a uthority we will resist to the limits of our ability.

From this it is apparent that the public have no legitimate access to either our deliberations or our funds. If, fo r instance, we choose to expend a mounts of the la tter, which a re no t derived from the common stock, on honouring certa in personalities and occasions, that is our prerogative. But our responsibilities respecting such

1 7 In Bristol, self-election was not even unrestricted among the select forty-three. More equal than others were the aldermen , who fill ed their own vacancies, and the Mayor. who usually picked new common councillors.

The Old System Reviewed 87

inestimable rights, of whatever their origin, have not rendered us insensible o f the contributions that the Corporation has made and can make to the common weal of Bristol. Many of the instru­ments for effecting this, no tably the striking of a county ra te, lie in o ther hands: nevertheless, provided our rights are no t a t risk, we will endeavour to promote the city 's interests. It must be expressly understood that we reject the notion of being answerable to any body of people o ther than ourselves, except as we allow or the law of the land requires.

Ample documenta tion is available to validate this representation. Particularly fruitful is the controversy over town dues in 1824-1 825 18

and the resolution of April 1832 replying to a hostile memorial about the Police Bill. 19 As the Mayor, John Barrow, proclaimed when he laid the foundation stone of the new Council House in 1824:

May they defend with energy and firmness their lawful rights and privi leges ... which have for centuries past been held sacred by the Corporation. 2 0

In forming the Corporation's outlook, politics was of less signifi­cance than custom. Apart from overt but modest assistance to the Established Church, the T ory Corporation simply absorbed the beliefs o f its Whig predecessor. The goal was Tory contro l, not the Corporation's disto rtion into a political organ o r even less a re­definition of the corporate philosophy. Finally, a strain of expediency is noticeable. A straitened treasury made it expedient to assert that the Corporation 's funds were owned as exclusively as were the members' persona l residences. Again, because there was little enthu­siasm for selfless public service, inactivity was excused by the plea that autho rity was located in other sovereign institutions. Last ly, the diverting of the income of certain charities made it desirable to declare their management to be private business.

Despite a llegations about financia l ineptitude and murky dealings, the Corporation 's record in this field was no t beyond defence. Given the sources of income, the contention that there was no obligation to use the funds on public projects was eminently reasonable. On the ot her hand , there was a lmost a b lase tolera nce of chronic shortages of ready cash which led to 15% of the income in 1835 having to be earma rked for interest payments on loans. The selling of property was open to criticism, and more attention was given to trying to find the extra money required for expenditure than to cutting down expenditure to the limits of an essentially inelastic

18 Supra, pp. 47-49. 10 P.C.C. 1827-1832, 7 April 1832, p. 539. 20 John Evans, A Chronological History of Bristol (Bristol: n.p .. 1825), p. 33 1.

88 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

income. In mitigation, it should be remembered that funds did not end up in the pockets of members of the Corporation. Moreover, Doncaster and Exeter corporations, each with less revenue than Bristol, contrived to accumulate much heavier debts. 2 1

To assess the Corpora tion's ha ndling of its own funds as against those administered in trust for public purposes, a double standard must be applied. While cha rges of extravagance and occasiona lly mismanagement could be levelled , those of embezzlement could not be sustained, apa rt from a possible exception of charity t ransac­tions. 22 To the accusation that it was misapplying public funds, the Corporation had a ready reply: by a liberal in terpretation, about 12% of its income (town dues, burgess money) was from public sources, yet at least 25% of expenditure went on public services. To the cha rge tha t a higher proportion of income should have been directed to public improvements, the rejoinder was that surplus income was exceedingly limited. Even had every possible economy been effected, the resultant savings would st ill have been no substi ­tute for a county rate. Despite the Corpora tion's exertions in 1832 in the context of the Riot compensation and police negotia tions, the parochial deputies point-bla nk refused to sa nction the Corpor­a tion being allowed to levy a county ra te.

The Corpora tion' s attitude towards its image was ambivalent. The £65,000 lavished on public buildings, the splendid processions and other pomp indicate that the formal occasion was rega rded in the same category as feasting and other bodily pleasures. In all this there was a conscious aping of the Corpora tion of London. Officia l dinners and balls were a projection of the entertainment to which the members of the Corporation were accustomed at home, but the more welcome since they did not have to pay for them. Following as it did those who, in the words of one local historian,

ra ised this City to a n [sic] high rank in the na tion, a nd . .. their successors [who] have exa lted it to the dignity of being the Second City in the kingdom,2 3

the Corporation fi rmly believed tha t its status could be found in display and ceremony.

The effect of this varied. It entirely fa iled to impress Kington, " Pa ul " , and the Libera l " misers". By contrast, to those who revered tradition, this infa tuation with livery a nd celebration was a tangible mark of the Corporation's liveliness. As to the common people, probably many were bedazzled by the Corporation on pa rade. Most people never had direct contact wi th the Corporation, a nd regarded its activities as remote from their everyday li ves. However, to the

2 1 M .C. R: General, pp. 108 a nd 116. 22 Supra, pp. 66-67. 23 W. Barrett, The History and Antiquities of the City of Bristol (Bristol: n.p.,

1789), dedica tion .

The Old System RevieiVed 89

Corporation itself, such do ings were a respected , integra l part of municipal life, in no way a ma tter o f frills a nd play. This meant, however, that the Corporation could never divorce itself from its public aspect. The habi ts o f ostentation and gratification may not have helped the Corporation when the Rio ts burst over its head in 183 1. One of the fi rst actions of the new o rder in 1836 was to dis­continue many of the a bove practices.

Lastly, how sound were the grounds on which the Corpora tion exercised power? Its charters seem either to have been upheld o r ignored as the Corporation deemed expedient. Bo th their letter a nd spirit had been diversely interpreted over the centuries. lt is perhaps most instructive to consider the situation in the context of the classic British feature of attaching responsibility to power. Certainly the Corporat ion had no mania for naked power. For one thing, the citizens would no t have to lera ted this. The Corporation 's philosophy was a subtle adapta tion of the classic precept. Basically, its object was to exercise selectively those powers which it desired , incl uding the right- not the obligation- to interfere in the a ffairs of sta tuto ry bodies. All th is was done while disclaiming responsibili ty for civic affai rs.

If the Corpora tion had simply a bsolved itself completely of public du ties and concentra ted on ho lding what materially it had, this would have been quite logical. At the o ther extreme, if the aim was con­quest o f a ll or most public business, then there would have been no uncertainty as to accounta bility. As it was, the Corporation steered a devious pa th. An unqualified rejection of accountability to the public o r the city was accompanied by the enjoyment of such powers as licensing and inspecting. With this went the demand to be consulted on such public matters as the Corporation nomina ted. An excellent starting po int in trying to explain the la tent ill-feeling which bedevilled public affairs fo r over a century is the Corporation 's dogma that it was in no respect beho lden to the city or its inha bi­tants. A body which a rbit ra rily wields a utho rity over public affairs while denying opportunity to exert influence on its delibera tions deserves little loyalty o r obedience. In so fa r as there existed any compact between the Corporation and the cit izens, the terms were no longer mutually accepted.

Analysing the conflicts in which the Corporation got embroiled is a useful aid to a n understanding of the situation. Confl ic t arose over four issues- trade, the county ra te, the conduct of the magistra tes and the select nature of the Corporation. Only the last menaced its very existence, but in all the controversies the theme developed by critics was the Corporation 's innate love of power, which it sought to expand at every opportunity. 24 Its opponents deplored its passion for secrecy, which they a ttributed to an excessive partiality to self-indu lgence a nd to disreputable dealings. They argued that in putting its own interests first the Corpora tion had

24 Sec e.g., the Town Dues, Police and Compensa tion Bills.

90 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

forfeited the city's confidence. To its credit, the Corporation was never accused of engaging in corrupt practices to benefit ei ther the Common Councillors or the Tory party. Rather than peculation and intrigue, it was mismanagement, extravagance and indifference which drove its adversaries to pamphlet and lawsuit.

The identity of the Corporation's opponents is a testimony to its ability to antagonize. Whigs were the ringleaders in five issues, Tories in two, a combination in seven, and in the other two the politics of those involved cannot be determined. Not one of the attacks was motivated primarily by a desire to make political capita l. Newspaper editors, merchants- both individual and in collaboration- and in the final years, committees of citizens like the parochial deputies, were in the vanguard . Writing under the pseudonym of "Cosmo" Gutch was the catalyst who established the Chamber of Commerce, a doughty enemy in the issue of town dues. 25 In 1833, after the Chamber's directors had dabbled in politics by floating an abortive petition for the reform of the Corporation, the majority of members, who were Tory, forbad further clashes. Notable absentees from the roll-call of opponents were the other statutory and quasi-public bodies, for reasons already explained . 2 6 The most feared opponent was the Central Committee of Parochial Deputies, which quickly learned the art of hard bargaining. It dissolved itself in 1835,27 but only because the Corpora tion was on its dea thbed. As discontent could not be expressed through the Corporation, it had to be directed against it. Majestic indifference was shown by the Corporation towards the public press and broadsheets. Memorials and petitions were accorded some attention, and the Corporation reacted sha rpl y if lawsuits were instituted or Bills contested. Legal broadsides against the Corporation brought mixed results- one success out of three. A daring tactic--direct appeal to the Government- was worth the effort. Each time it was resorted to, the Corporation suffered a major reverse or was coerced into action .

In the Corporation 's response to pressure, a rhythmic pattern is discernible. As an opening gambit, the matter was disregarded; then came a delaying or stalling stratagem: if the a ttack was relentless, concessions were grudgingly made up to the point beyond which retreat was intolerable. Opportunity was always sought to withdraw or dilute concessions already granted, such as Ludlow's suggestion to liberalize admission to freedom, and the promise in i 832 to publish the accounts. 28 In all, six attacks were ignored, one promptly capitulated to, three temporarily resisted , five replied to by court proceedings, and two resisted in entirety.

Relatively little was done by the Corporation to curb its rights or remedy its supposed defects. Those who opposed it achieved some

2s Supra, pp. 47-49. 20 Supra, pp. 6-12. 2

' Final Report o(lhe Central Commiltee of Parochial Deputies. 30 September 1835. 2"Supra. p. 73, and Town Clerk's Correspondence. 14 November 1832.

The Old System Reviewed 91

victories: the town dues were drastically modified, compensation arising from the Riots was heavily reduced, and the instituting of a county rate frustrated . Such achievements were, however, far out­weighed by the failure of the attempt to open the Corporation, to reform the police, to inva lidate the claim to town dues, to bring the magistrates to book after the Riots, to revive the Grammar School , or to extract an admission that corporate funds were a public stock.

Apart from one instance, 29 there is no evidence that the Corpor­ation tended to split into warring factions. Over the really vital issues - town dues, prosecution of the magistrates, the Police Bill- the minutes imply that the solidarity remained intact.

Animosity between Corporation and citizens may be misinter­preted by the historian, but there is no doubt that it existed. Twentieth-century observers, with at best a fragmented appreciation of those times, and fortified by hindsight, find it tempting to apply rigorous but irrelevant current standards to past performances in the public arena. To some extent this is unavoidable, but the Cor­poration's opponents were not unrealistic visionaries or neurotic academics. They were practical men concerned with the earthy prob­lems of eking out a human existence in a turbulent age. Their values were certainly not distorted by hindsight.

The consequences of the Napoleonic Wars- social unrest, un­ceasing industrial iza tion, and the trend towards liberalism- made it likely that the Corpora tion would be taxed with its shortcomings. As the Webbs read the situation, 30 not until 1818 was it subject to any serious or.slaught. Then, significantly, unease arose over the magistrates' ability to ensure order. It may be that before then the local oligarchies had often governed reasonably well according to their lights and avoided trouble.3 1 It may be that the advent of Tory dominance in Bristol in 1812 helps explain the growing unrest. Even so, it is difficult to believe that an earlier, sound local government had been supplanted by one inherently unsound. In general , it seems that rapid development exposed the inadequacies of government, which hitherto had not been of serious consequence. Additionally, Bristol was saddled with the results of past dissension, in that many potential members of the Corporation who could have tempered the antipathy had either been frightened off or were effectually disbarred for political reasons.

No single motive underlay the behaviour of those who attempted to storm the bastion of the Corporation . Essentially they were neither playing politics nor seeking a place for themselves. Personal

29 The Journal, 4 March 1826, p. 3 claimed that Gutch's campaign to reform the Corporation had split its rank s, several resignations being imminent. Whatever the intentions, none occurred.

JO Sidney and Beat rice Webb, Tire Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 , p. 696. J J G . Kitson C lark . Tire Making of Victorian England (London. 1962). p. 160.

92 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

grievances occasionally prompted an a ttack,32 but they sustained none. Nor was the trouble primaril y related to political or rel igious exclusion, a lthough on a national footing the Webbs assign to this high importance. 33 Having monopolized power for over a century, the cries of Whig Dissenters about Tory exclusivism rang rather ho llow. or more significance were financial facto rs, for the prin­ciple of "'no taxa tion without representation" was dear to both Kington and the parochia l deputies. Furthermore, the merchants a nd businessmen whose aspirations were linked to Bristol 's economic fortunes, wanted something more tangible than municipal goodwill. When the Corporation failed to deal wi th the difficulties o f trade, it lost credibility. Quite probably, a strain of self-importance also ran through the Corporation's opponents and they believed that they, o r a t least people of their kind, could ma nage affa irs much better.

Kington dogmatically maintained that the root cause of evil was the select principle. The Corporation denied the citizens any share in their government and declined to take them into its confidence. Even the privileged freemen were treated in the sa me fash ion. The Corporation neglected to molli fy the feelings of those who were excluded and made no placatory gestures. It could no t even pro­duce a pragmatic, effective paternalism . Whatever else the Riots proved , they to tally demolished the sentimental idea that some unifying bond jo ined cit izens and Corporation. How far a ll this exemplified the ··Radical spirit which was assailing all corrupted institutions''34 is difficult to gauge. Place and Parkes, busily engin­eering socia l and political reform, may have been working on a more exalted plane for the same ends as were Manchee, Kington, Gutch, Acland and "Paul", but in Bristol these agita to rs were rarely Radical, no r was the Corporation "corrupt", even if it had depa rted from its o riginal form.

In two ways a community of interest was missing: first, between the Corporation and all outsiders, and , secondly, between the dis­sentients themselves. There was no threat from the lower classes who had little connection with o r in terest in the Corporation and its world . But fo r the elements o f the lower-middle a nd middle classes who were getting a tas te for political power, the Corporation's imperious front invited assault. Its chances of ma king allies here had been squandered, so blinded was it by the importance it a ttached to its own rights. These " upstarts" might have acquiesced in the status quo if the Corporation had declared its dedication to the promotion of trade. But its actions- o r, rather, its inact ions- in this sphere invited a hosti le reaction. It often repulsed even the favourably

32 E.g. Walker 's pamphlets. Bush's book o n town dues and in a qualified sense, Acland 's diatribes against the magistrates.

33 Sidney a nd Beat rice W ebb. The Manor and the Borough. Pt. 11. p. 696. 3 4 B. Keith- Luca s. The English Loml Gmwnment Franchise: A Short Histon·

(Oxford. 1952). p. 2. ·

The Old System Reviewed 93

inclined. In dismissing Pinney's mayoralty, the Bristol Free Reporter, an ephemeral Radical paper, managed to convey a widespread a tti­tude of the time:

He has become in every sense of the word, one of the soulless Corpora tion, a body possessing neither respect, esteem or confi­dence of their fellow citizens, but which, judging from their acts, seem in love with odium, and take every means in their power to secure their full share of it.35

The solution was a more democratic governing body and the imposition of public accountability. There was no hope of reform from wi thin. Into the Corpora tion's code of ethics the "defence unto death" of its privileges was ingrained. Representa tives of the Cor­poration testified to the House of Lords in 1835 tha t it was doing an admirable job.36 Probabl y its bewilderment as to why it was so regularly at odds with citizens was perfectly genuine. As a closed body it was, its critics insisted, constitutiona lly incapable o f acting with any real benefit fo r the city. But if the Corporation was opened, all these evils would flee. Trade would return , spending would be strictly util itarian, an effective police system would materialize and, overall , the interests of Bristol would be bela tedly but zealously safeguarded.

Along with many select, irresponsible bodies, the Corporation patently fa iled to cope with the needs of the time. Like its counter­part in Southampton, it "vegeta ted rather somnolentl y through the even tenor of an existence",37 disturbed only slightly by the forces at work a round it. Onl y a thorough reform could transform the old corporations into " what they ought to be, useful and efficient instru­ments of local government". 38 Yet the Corporation never professed to be the guide to Bristol's future. It was a slothful, incompetent unit of local government because it never believed its primary pur­pose was to fulfil the public's needs. Its proclamati ons about "discharging its duties with fidelity and honour" were not sophistry. Nor could it be expected to have special prescience about the way the city was being moulded by dimly-perceived forces. Where it erred was in maintaining a role in the world of public affa irs while insisting on functioning by the same precepts that governed its pri vate business. Whether it liked it or not, it was accountable for its dili­gence in the public sphere. Its periodic assumption of public functions which were used or abused as the Corporation itself decreed was unpardonable in an era when other " rights", long suppressed or muted, were demanding recognition.

35 Bristol Free Reporter. 29 September 1832. 36 See House of Lords Journals, LXV II . 1835. pp. 40 1-405 passim. 3 ' A. Temple Patte rson, A Selection f rom Southampton Journals and Minutes. p. xv. 3 R M.C. R: General. p. 49.

C HAPT E R S I X

TH E ADV EN T OF R E FORM

An y detailed tracing of the evolution of municipal reform or explana­tion of political overtones is outside the scope of this work . In three integra ted pieces of scholarship, G. B. A. M . Finlayson has covered the Municipal Corporations Commission and its Report, the political situa tion a nd the grand culmination, the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. 1 ft is evident in retrospect that Lord Melbourne's Whig administration intended to destroy every unreformed corporation. Our chief interest here is to understand how the Corporation of Bristol reacted to its impending extinction. The essentia l elements of the national situation will be only briefly sketched.

Municipal reform cannot be divorced from the parliamenta ry reform which preceded it. They are two sides of the one coin , or in the imagery of Joseph Parkes, the young, radical Birmingha m solicitor, " Municipal Reform is the stea m engine for the Mill built by ' Parlia mentary Reform"'. 2 An attack on the corporations was foreshadowed by the a ppointment of a parliamenta ry Select Com­mittee of Enquiry, heavily stocked with Whigs, early in 183 3. Unable even to discover the exact number of corporations it was examining, it nevertheless significantly concluded that the corporations " as then constituted, were not adapted to the present state of society" . 3 The chief recommendation-an intensive investigation by a Royal Com­mission of Enquiry- was speedily adopted in July. Concurrently, legisla ti on dealing with Scottish corporations was enacted and a Bill promoted to confer municipal government on the booming industrial towns given parliamentary representation in 1832. Additionally, there were moves afoot to reform the Corpora tion of Bristol. The Bill which Protheroe had tried to get through the previous year4

had been the first indication. Then in Ma rch 1833 the Board of the Cha mber of Commerce by nine votes to seven decided to fo rward

1 G . B. A. M. Fin layson, (I) ""The Mun icipal Corporations Commission and Report , 1833-35"". Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Vol. XXXVI, May 1963, pp. 35-52; (2) ··The Politics of M unicipal Reform, 1835". English Historical Revie11·, Vol. LXXX I, O cto ber 1966, pp. 673-692; (3) The Municipal Corporations Act 1835 (unpublished B.Litt thesis, Oxford University, 1959).

2 Quoted in G. B. A. M . Finlayson . English Historical Review, Vol. LXXXI, p. 687. See a lso Jessie K . Buckley, Joseph Parkes of Birmingham (London, 1926).

3 G . B. A. M. F inlayson, Thesis , p . 38. • Supra. p. 60.

The Advent of Reform 95

through one of the M .P.s "a petition setting forth the evils of the present municipal government, and praying for a remedy". 5 Mar­shalling every sympa thizer, the Tory members of the Chamber had a special meeting convened which recalled the petition and effec­tively declared that it was inexpedient fo r the C ha mber to intervene. 6

Nevertheless, the Corpora tion must have sensed that it was steadily being crowded into a corner from which there was no escape.

Reform of the Corpora tions was ad vocated for a variety of reasons, but all shades of po litical opinion agreed that they could no t be left untouched . In genera l, it was agreed that:

l. they were unsuitable instruments for coping with the growing problems facin g the towns;

2. they had proved un able to maintain an acceptable level of law and order;

3. though no longer "electoral colleges for Pa rliament '', 7 they still dispensed perquisites a nd patronage such as charitable funds and the granting of public house licences which in corrupt ha nds could be brought to bea r on elections;

4. the majority were in Tory control; 5. they were a barrier impeding the advance of democracy; 6. as exemplified by the freemen a nd the select members, they

were havens of excl usivism and privilege.

It is very easy to overstress the political mo tives for refo rm at the expense of administra tive and representa tional arguments. Yet it was scarcely feasible to overha ul town government without tearing the corporations asunder. Even allowing a minute section of the population any say in their affairs would have represented the destruction of the status quo. Quite conveniently, party cause and objective need were in accord. Had the corporations been over­whelmingly Whig in composition, the Radical exponents of refo rm might not have found the Grey government so amenable to their views. As it was, the chief object seemed to be to administer a dose of " poison to Toryism". This effect was achieved in the ina ugural elections for the reformed councils, for as the architect of the measure, Parkes, confided to Lord Durham, " on politics, all is safe. The Tories as we always calculated hors de combat by Municipal Reform ". 8

The To ries also saw the refo rm in essentially po litical terms. It was:

a political manoeuvre, calculated to further the advantages of

s Mercury, 6 April 1833, p . 3. 6 For a detailed na rrative of these events see J. B. Kington, A Burgess's Letters.

Reports of Chamber of Commerce meetings 1833- 1834. 7 Sidncy a nd Beat rice Webb, The Parish and the County, p. xii i. 8 Quoted in G. B. A . M. Finlayso n, English Historical Re11iell', Vol. LXXX I.

p. 69 1.

96 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

its sponsors at the expense of the traditional guardians of property and stability in the boroughs. 9

Even Peel, a moderate on this issue, counselling acceptance of a "sincere, bona fide Reform", sensed intentions " not to extirpate but to transfer the abuse of power".• 0 There were extravagant warnings tha t the real intention was to destroy the House of Lords as well as local Toryism. Nevertheless, there is among present-day historians widespread agreement that "a sincere desire to enact a law to reform corporations in the safest, best a nd most satisfactory manner" was subservient to the demands of partisanship. Finlayson's conclusion is that:

For many close to it, municipa l reform was far from being a detached a nd disinterested debate on a " Benthamite blueprint". Rather it was a struggle over issues considered to be of grea t political and party significance; and, as such, a source of high hopes or stark anxieties. 1 1

Those selected for the Commission of Enquiry were almost solely " the Whigs favourite huma n animal, the barrister of six years' standing". 12 All except one were Benthamites, " personal, radical friends of Parkes", who, having been appointed as the Commission 's secretary, knew that " they would do their duty". 13 On the question of whether " the ro tten Corporations" whose end he was plotting had any saving graces, Parkes' mind was firmly closed. The com­missioners were instructed to collect info rmation under numerous headings and elicit defects in the system, all being embodied in conclusions recommending a course of action . A logica l deduction is that, far from initi a ting an unbiased fact-finding study, the Government had prejudged the issue. Primarily its goal was to buttress legisla tive plans with incontrovertible evidence of intolerable infirmity and decay in the corporate system. 14

The Bristo l Corporation soon received a communication intimat­ing that a visit was projected , and requesting that info rmation be prepared on sixteen aspects o f its functions and rights.• 5 The headings of the schedule were boundaries, charities, title, officers, freedom, election, admission fees to freedom and offices, courts,

0 Ibid., p. 676. 10 Quoted ibid., p. 678. For further information. sec G . B. A. M. Finlayson"s 1hesis.

pp. 82-92. 11 G . B. A. M. Finlayson, English Historical Reviell", Vol. LXXXI , p. 692. 12 orman Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel (London , 1953), p. 419. 13 G . B. A . M. Finlayson, T hesis, pp. 40-41. 14 For a description of the Commission , its constitution and procedure, see

G. B. A. M. Finlayson. Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. Vol. XXXVI, pp. 36-42.

15 Letterto the Mayor of Bristol, 11 September 1833; P.C.C. 1832- 1835, 11 January 1834, p. 140.

The Advent of Reform 97

j uries, police, gaols, fines, property and revenue, patronage, local Acts, and the general state of the town. Both the Commissioners deputed to visit Bristol were barristers under forty. J ohn E. Drink­water, also known as Bethune, was apparently one of the non­Radicals on the Commission. He had been admitted to the Middle Temple in 1827. At the time of the enquiry he was only thirty- two and was retained as a counsel to the Home Office. He was highly regarded and participated in the drafting of the Municipal Corpor­ations Bill itself. 16 His o lder colleague, Edward J . Gambier, had entered Lincoln 's Inn in 1822. Membership of the Commission la unched his career towards respectable heights- in 1834 a knight­hood a nd the Recordership of Prince of Wa les Island and in 1842 he was appointed the C hief Justice of Madras in lndia. 17

The Corporation was really on tria l and must have been tempted to decline co-operation. Earlier, when the abortive Select Committee was struggling to amass information, it had toyed with a policy of non-compliance. In the end it decided to make a ll records available and afford every facility to the commissioners. 18 Obstruction would only furnish furt her proof of a charge that it concealed its business from the public, a llegedly one of the abiding defects of the corpora te system. As the commissioners were not empowered to compel testi­mony, but relied for inducement on the prestige of a commisssion issued by the C rown and the respect it commanded, they were indebted to the Corporation. Doubly so, since the Dock Company permitted no access to its records and the Society of Merchant Venturers only selective examination. The Society provided materia l about its charter and constitution, but it declined " upon principle and in support of the Society's rights" to produce any account of the revenue resulting from the wharfage lease. ' 9 Only nine of the 246 corporations investigated were to tally or partly refracto ry, but controversy over whether " illegal a nd tyrannical means were em­ployed for the extorti on of evidence" continued for a prolonged period.

Intermittently from 7 October until2 November 1833 the Commis­sioners sat in formal session in a room in the Council House, a shrewd gesture by the Corporation. Because of the Quarter Sessions and other interruptions, the actual time occupied was a bout fifteen days. Despite the sittings being advertised a nd open to the public, as at Leeds, where the " throng" totalled twenty, there was a sparse a ttendance. Only seven or eight of the thirty present a t the inaugura l si tting were burgesses. 20 The invi tation to present sundry grievances against the establishment was poorly uti lized . Somewhat puzzl-

' 0 See Frederic Boasc, Modern English Biography (Truro: n.p., 1892), p. 263. ' ' See Sidney Lee (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1903). p. 475. ' 8 P.C.C. 1832- 1835, 13 March 1833, p. 75 and 11 January 1834, p. 138. 19 Minutes of Standing Committee, 5 ovember 1833 and Minutes of General

Meeting, 4 December 1833: Merchant Hall Book of Proceedings ( 17) 1830- 1836, p. 178 and p. 194.

20 Ga:elle, I 0 October 1833. p. 3.

98 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

ingly, the press confined its reports to scrappy accounts of evidence. One paper explained that nothing better than an approximate resume could be printed because reporters were barred from taking notes. Four articles each were published by the Journal and the Mercury, the Tory and Liberal mouthpieces respectively, while the Gazette contented itself with two articles and the Mirror with one. Almost inexplicable- unless it was believed that the ma tter was sub judice­was the a bsence of editoria l comment on the enquiry a nd what it might portend for the government of Bristol.

One regrets the depa rture from Bristol of Acland and his invective. Scanty interest and coverage a lso prevailed in Coventry. From the historical standpoint, it was a great tragedy that the minutes of evidence were not accorded official status: without this imprimatur, they were destroyed, at least with reference to Bristol. Kington in A Burgess's Letters written a t the time cites them tantalizingly in his footnotes. They a re in no sense a precis of what happened , and the task of reconstructing the submissions and the general atmos­phere is very difficult. .

Ludlow was entrusted with the Corporation' s case, with the Mayor keeping a constant watching brief. Generally, one or two a ldermen hovered in the background. Manchee2 1 and Yisger22 were the chief spokesmen for those who opposed the Corpora tion. It is likely tha t they represented only a tiny coterie. A veneer of cordiali ty if not Christian brotherliness for the most part kept truculence and rancour out of the hearings. An immediate impression of "acuteness, tact, and gentlemanly demeanour" was made by the Commissioners. 23

Afterwards, similar compliments were reciprocated by the Commis­sioners when conveying thanks for the assistance rendered by the Corporation .24 The Corporation in an unsophisticated way deliber­ately cultiva ted a positive image. Whatever its deepest inclinations, it knew that sealed lips would serve it ill. " Manly co-operation" was the best defence.

As to the proceedings, it can be deduced tha t tedium too often triumphed. A substantial amount of time was spent- or perhaps sq uandered- on ferreting out obscure details more easily ascertain­able by o ther methods. The invitation to comment freely on any aspect of the Corporation 's activi ties produced some acrimonious exchanges a bo ut the preponderance of Tories on the Common Council. 2 5 Delegates from the Chamber of Commerce stressed the " partia l and oppressive operation" of local taxation . Other contro­versia l issues included the state of trade, the management of charities and dabbling by the Corporation in local politics. All this

2 1 Supra, p. 66. 22 Supra, p. 50. 23 Gazette, 10 October 1833, p. 3. 2 4 Leller from E. J . Gambier, 21 November 1833; T own Clerk 's Correspondence

1833. Sec also P.C.C. 1832-1 835. 11 January 1834, p. 138. 25 Journal, 2 ovember 1833. p. 3.

The Advent of Reform 99

failed to create a highly-charged atmosphere. Perhaps the Commis­sioners were hoping fo r a more prono unced clash in o rder to support the evidence for change. However, they tactfully avoided entanglement in a ny fracas by observing that

they would be glad to encourage an improved feeling, but they could no t interfere to determine questions in dispute. 26

In his summing up, Ludlow was neither aggressive nor intran­sigent. His remarks verged on a reca ntation of past a ttitudes. He acknowledged the fact of recurring discord between the Corporation and the citizens, and asserted , in effect, that the Corporation eagerly seized the chance to search out and remedy any " tangible grievances", and thus resto re amicable rela tions with its " fellow­citizens". He believed that legisla tion would certainly fo llow the Commissioners' Report. " Whatever the result", he brashly con­cluded, " the Corporation would cheerfully acquiesce."27 This last disclosure was possibly a double entendre. He was court ing a reprimand from his employers, as to some extent he implied that the Corpora tion 's rights were no longer para mount . The Corpo r­ation 's behaviour a t the hearings did no t suggest that it a lready knew it was doomed. After all , the po licy of uniform, manda tory re-organization of sta tuto ry bodies was a novelty: the Incorpora tion of the Poor's exemption from the 1834 Poor Act excited the Corporat ion's hopes tha t it might procure a simila r pa rdon. Unless the Corpora tion genuinely believed that there was a rea l cha nce to avoid being a bolished , its attitude at the hearings was inexplic­able. It did no t see the issue as irrevocably decided .

Under Pa rkes' deta iled supervision, the tea ms of commissioners produced a mass of ma terial. They seem "everywhere to perform their duty with zeal, sagacity a nd fairness", sta ted The Times in October 1833.28 The months after October 1834 were a winter of strain rather than discontent for Parkes as he a nd the Commission's chairman, John Blackburne, M.P. fo r Huddersfield, compiled from the mass of documenta tion a dra ft general report. After prior circulation to members, the report and four volumes of appendices, which included the section on Bristol, were published on 30 Ma rch 1835, just as Sir Robert Peel's Ministry was being ushered out. Those to whom the reform of corporations was anathema had delivered a series of objections: the Commission was illegal; its members were partial and mainly Dissenters; anti -corporation witnesses were often given a favourable reception; the general Report was published before all the individual reports were to hand; two Commissioners refused to sign the fina l report; ma ture compila tion of the report was

26 Jbid., 9 November 1833, p. 3. 27 Gazette, 6 August 1835, p. 3. 28 Cited in G . B. A. M . Finlayson. Bulletin of the lnstilllte of Historical Research,

Vol. XXXV I, p. 47.

I 00 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

precluded by the breakneck speed at which the comm issioners worked .

Witho ut dismissing the cent ral issue of bias, it may be no ted that the production of such a massive report in so short a space of time was indeed a great accomplishment. The Webbs were tremendously impressed by the technical act o f compilation. It was

not withstanding some shortcomings and certa in conspicuous failures, a survey ... to which, fo r systema tic accuracy, lucidity, and completeness, we know no rival. 29

In their travels the commissioners had visited 285 towns in which they found 246 corporations. All individual repo rts except those for twenty-one bo roughs were ready for inclusion in the genera l Report. Yet this was no t a digest of its constituent pa rts, no r did it simply put forward proposals based on the evidence a massed. It was, in fact , a manifesto. As the Webbs put it , the Report claimed that

" The perversion of municipa l institutions to po litical ends", " the positive distrust and dislike" enterta ined towards the Borough Magistra tes "as political partisans" , the " misma nagement of the Corpora te property of the most glaring kind " prove . .. that the whole body of Municipa l Corporations in England and Wales "where no t productive of positive evil ... exist , in the great majority of instances, fo r no purpose of general utility". 30

It concluded very firmly that the corporations

neither possess no r deserve the confidence or respect o f YOUR

MAJESTY 'S subjects, and . .. a tho rough refo rm must be effected , befo re they can become what ... they ought to be, useful and effi­cient instruments of local government. 31

Of the eighty-page section on Bristol, most was devoted to the Corpora tion. Other bodies such as the Merchant Venturers, the Incorpo ra tion of the Poor, the Dock Company and the Chamber of Commerce received a briefer mention, primarily in rela t ion to the deriva tion of their powers in local government.

After delineating the Corporation 's bounda ries and examining its history and its cha rters, the Report considered in detai l its nature and the diverse duties o f its o fficers. Machinery fo r the enfo rcement o f law and o rder , particularly the police, was scrutinized, and refer­ence was made to the 1830 proposals fo r reorganizing the watch. Ten pages were a llocated to a review of the main sources of revenue. At the end of this factual secti on of the Report , 32 the trade and

2"Sidney a nd Bea trice Webb. The Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 , p. 717. 30 Ibid ., p. 7 19. 3 1 M.C. R: General, p. 49. 32 Appendices consisted of the various c harters pertaining to the City, a schedule

of relevant local Acts, a list of documents subrnillcd in support of the Report.

The Advent of Reform 101

port dues embracing foreign and Irish trade were analysed, and compared with those a pplying in Liverpool, Gloucester, Hull and London. This section included a survey of the conflict over town dues in 1824- 1825. Visger plied the Commissioners with corrected trade tables after the sittings finished, a procedure which the Tories deplored when the Bill was before the House in 1835.33 A terse conclusion gave the impression that Gambier and Drinkwater had tired of their task. They stressed "obsession with power", "discord with the citizens", and the ''injurious effects on trade of municipal dues" .

The Commissioners dismissed any imputation that the Corpor­ation was "clandestinely appropriating its revenues to individual pro­fits", 3 4 and acquitted it of using corporate and cha rity fund s to sway elections. Indeed, the administ ra tion of the numerous charities was no t even mentioned. The theme repeatedly stressed was that of declining trade.35 Not only had the Corporation failed to use its powers to arrest this trend, but it had been guilty of "'mis­management and extravagance" in continuing to deplete its sizeable revenue unprofi tably on

an overgrown establishment and in a display of state magnificence which is satisfacto ry to contemplate only when it is a symbol of prosperity, defrayed out of its overflow.36

The Report could find little to say in mitigation of the Cor­poration' s performance as conservator of the port. At first it had practically ignored the criticism that the multifarious port dues were a disincentive to trade. When it was at last forced to admit that they were injurious, the Corporation asserted that it lacked any authority to abate the burdens. The Report asserted that

The mildest charge tha t can be made against them is that they have been careless of its interest; there is much ground for assert­ing that they have been actually injurious to it. 3 7

In the same passage the Commissioners a ttacked the very nature of the Corporation:

[it) is constituted on the closest principles o f self election and irresponsibility; and it seems to us to offer a very unfavourable specimen of the results of such a system.

33 See J. B. Kington . "A Reply to Sir R. Vyvyan 's Speech" in A Burgess 's Letters. In Coventry there was similar reliance on a party who lac ked impartiality. Sec S. E. Kerrison, Coventry and the Municipal Corporations Act, pp. 16-19.

J • M .C. R: Bristol, p. 74. 35 Ibid ., pp. 61-68. 36 1bid., p. 74. 37 lbid.

102 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

It was accused of having "a desire for power" and a determination to prevent anything over which it could not exercise control. The most telling example of this was the legislation it had promoted or sought to promote, almost all of which " makes good some question­able point, or fences them round with some new privilege". 38 This inevitably resulted in "fierce opposition" , which had grown into "general discontent", and aro used such suspicion that

it seems doubtful whether the corporation could not do an act of rea l liberality, without being liable to suspicion and reproach on account of it. 3 9

The Commissioners had much sympathy with the citizens who were told that, despite identical personnel, the Corpora tion and the magistracy were entirely separate and independent entities. A claim that many undesirable practices had been introduced during the period of Whig dominance was turned to advantage by the Com­missioners. This offered compelling proof that the fault was inherent in the very system:

Among all the qua rrels and disturbances of which unhappily Bristol has at all times had more than her sha re, among all changes of politica l party, the corporation has a lways been the subject of attack and animosity; and we are of the opinion that these feelings cannot permanently endure in any society unless there being some­thing specially bad in the first principles of its constitution.4 0

Criticisms levelled at the general Report have a lready been alluded to. It was alleged tha t it was concocted not to raise the standard of town government but as " a partial party job" . The Whigs were in desperate need of a political restora tive, and the solution was to smack down the corpora tions, which were dominated by the Tories.41 Secondly, it was pointed out that there was no statistical survey of the extent of the evils. Instead, words like "generally" and "frequently" were used to conceal insufficient knowledge, and all were branded with the misdemeanours of some.4 2 Thus, the general Report was not grounded on material assembled by the individual studies.

On the other hand, perhaps even the most exemplary research would not have led to very different conclusions. Although the evidence was inadequate, the Commissioners were convinced that only popular elections guaranteed purity of administra tion. As Pro­fessor Keith-Lucas cogently noted :

38 Ibid . 30 Ibid. 40 Ibid ., p. 75. 41 See Morning Chronicle, 24 September 1833, p. 2. 41 See Sidney and Beat rice Webb, The Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 , p. 7 18.

The Advent of Reform 103

No exaggera tion or misrepresenta tion was needed, fo r the bare sta tement o f facts about the management and organization of the corporations was in itself enough to damn them completely.43

Furthermore the conclusions in the general Report closely match the situation in Bristo l. In general, it is true to say tha t in Bristo l the Corporation had lost identity of interest with the citizens, tha t a party spirit marked the selection of members, tha t the Corporation admitted responsibility only to itself a nd conducted its proceedings in secret, that the magist ra tes were no t highly esteemed, that police arrangements were appalling, that bounda ries were obsolete a nd anomalous, and finally, tha t fund s were only partly applied to muni­cipal improvements. 4 4

The report on Bristo l was filled with very general sta tements. Intuition and the isolated case, rather than searching analysis a nd assessment, were relied upon. However, in the circumstances it was unrealistic to expect any more in the a bsence of a pro longed enquiry by an expert team. The object might have been to produce a vague condemna tion, but this does not necessarily invalida te the j udgments made. No major factual errors a re evident in the Report, though there are a number of omissions. No mention was made of the regulation of watermen or hackney coaches. In contrast to the repo rts produced for o ther towns, the administration of cha rities was ignored, perhaps because of the tho rough investigations earlier con­ducted by the C harity Commissioners.45 The licensing functions and the aldermen in their judicial ro le were trea ted curtly as of no special account.

Consideration of revenue occupied ten pages without being very enlightening. There was inadequate treatment of corporate revenue and of the proportion of income being a pplied to public services and improvements. The feeble explanation given by the Corporation of why it fai led to keep its promise to publish the accounts was accepted.46 Nei ther the Select Vestries nor the Turnpike T rustees were thought worthy of mention.

It was prudent to attack the select system as such, and no t the Tories as " the party in ascendency". Probably the Commissioners had an overwhelming predisposition to condemn the Bristo l Cor­poration. Even so, with the limited evidence availa ble, they could have made a more effective a nd convincing job tha n they d id .4 7

lt is doubtful whether any action of the Corporation 's could have induced more favo ura ble fi nd ings. After a ll , the scheme of the reformers was to bring about wholesale cha nge. As it was, the

4 3 B. Keith-Lucas, History of English Local Govemme/11 Franchise, p. 5 1. 4 4 M.C.R: General, pp. 32-45 passim. 4 5 Supra, p. 67. 4 0 See M.C.R: Bristol, p. 40 a nd supra, p. 73. 4 7 For an attempt to produce for the co rporations as a whole an impartial verdict

based on the evidence amassed see Sidney and Beatrice Webb, The Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 , pp. 722-737.

104 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

Corporation made no effort to lock files away or suppress evidence. Burges later asserted that the Commissioners while in Bristol were

" in constant Communication with persons [i.e. reformers] not in open Court' ' .48 Because it believed in its own innocence, the Cor­poration was very frank and was genuinely grieved when the Report was published. There was a touch of incredulity in the aldermen's resolution that what had been written was

in ma ny respects exceedingly in accurate and calculated to preju­dice the Corporation and the Trade of the Port in the eyes of the Public, particularly in respect to the Local Ra tes. 4 9

The Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced on 5 June 1835. It applied to all the 183 corpora tions which had been investigated, with the exception of London. Within these lived one-seventh of the inhabitants of England and Wa les. In them there were to be established new town councils elected by a ll ratepaying householders of three years' standing. All property and all functions were to be transferred to them. The councils were, however, to appoint trustees to manage cha ritable trusts a nd were to put forward the names of men who might be made borough magistrates by the crown. Every office, jurisdiction and privilege inconsistent with the Bill was to be abolished. Despite the implications of this root-and-branch legisla­tion, amazingly little opposition arose until the third reading, and even then the diehards did no t press a division. As the Webbs expressed it: "Seldom can so revolutionary a measure have passed so easily through the Ho use of Commons". 50

The Corporation of Bristol , however, was no t nearly so oblivious of what the measure po rtended. Its demeanour was composed but agitated . Although Ludlow had earlier interpreted its po licy as "cheerful acquiescence in any ensuing measure", this a ttitude was quickly abandoned. At a n informa l meeting, the aldermen resolved on opposition, and through Charles Payne, the Mayor, in formed Sir Richard Vyvyan, M .P. for Bristol , of their intentions. 51 One passage emphasized that he was no t being requested to seek an exemption for Bristo l. Almost simultaneously, the committee formed in Februa ry 1834 to watch parliamentary proceedings affecting corporations was supplanted by a committee of the whole house. 52

It took its cue from the aldermen and declared that many of the clauses would tend to injure the interests o f the city. Hitherto, what counted was avoidance of injury to the Corporation's interests. By a subtle transposi tion , these latter were now equa ted with those of Bristo l, the city.

4 8 House of Lords Journals. LXV II . 1835. p. 407. 4 0 Proceedings of Mayor and Aldermen. 9 May 1835, p. 33 1. 50 Sidney and Beat rice Webb, The Manor and the Borough, Pt. 11 , p. 742. " Letter from C. Payne, 8 June 1835; Vyvyan Papers. 52 P.C.C. 1832- 1835, I February 1834. p. 54 and Committee Book 18 19-1835. 17

June 1835, pp. 3 11-3 12.

The Advent of Reform 105

A deputat io n consisting o f Fripp, Goldney and George Bengough, the Whig, hurried to Lo ndon while the Corpo ratio n's committee was preparing a list o f .. improvements". C hief among these was an a mendment which imposed a q ualification on potential town coun­cillo rs and charity t rustees. Fortified by these and o ther expressio ns of support , Vyvyan had p romised to deno unce the Bill during the debate on the third reading. In some bother because o f the temporary absence of [Henry?] Bush, Jeremiah Os borne, the M .P.s agent, had earlie r d rummed up a "spontaneous" petition from the freemen a nd consulted Daniel o n the pro priety of a ugmenting it wi th a Corpor­a tion petitio n couched in like vein. 53 As his speech demonstrated , Vyvyan was by no means wanting in resources of inte llect a nd energy. He berated the Report for including the tables and altera ti ons which Visger had priva tely supplied to the Bristol Commissio ners. He assai led the Bill as "opposed to the law, and subversive of the Constitu tion of the Country", pleading fo r the hereditary rights of aldermen and the parliamentary rights o f freemen. 5 4 As an .. inde­pendent member" a nd " hampered by no party consideration", Vyvyan urged that Bristol sho uld be exempted from the Bill 55 as " it stood free fro m any imputation as to the applicatio n of its funds". 56

Vyvyan 's eloquence was wasted o n the Ho use of Commo ns, but there was still ho pe that the Lo rds would rebuff the Bill and an officia l petitio n was composed . 57 This recited the major activities and charities entrusted to the Corpora tion . Such trust had not been abused , and neither the Municipal Corporations Report nor the com­panio n vo lume, the Charity Commissioners Report had accused it of ma lpractice o r embezzlement of fund s. In equity, could not evi­dence be presented and a case developed for Bristo l's exemptio n? Alternatively, wou ld the drafting of a special measure expressly tailo red to Bristo l's positio n be welcomed?

Similar representa tio ns were forwarded by over thirty corpo r­ations. Rebellio us noises issued from the Tory peers, who gladly acceded to delayi ng tactics. Fina lly, J . L. Knight , K .C., and Sir Charles Wetherell were deputed as joint counsel for the corporatio ns. Wetherell spoke for twelve hours. 58 About this the Mercury com­mented savagely:

[He] indulged himself witho ut control in o ne o f those displays for which he has acquired some noto rie ty; in which invective a nd

" Letters between J . Osbornc and Sir R . Vyvyan, 15 J une and 10 July 1835: Vyvyan Papers.

54 Hansarc/'s Parliamell/ary Debates, XX IX. 20 July 1835. col. 738. "Supra, p. 99. 56 Hansard, 20 July 1835, col. 748. 57 Committee Book 18 19- 1835, 23 Ju ly 1835, pp. 327-331. 58 This tour de force was immediate ly immortalized in a pamphlet, Speech of Sir

C. Wetirere/1 at tire Bar of tire House of Lords against tire Iniquitous Corporations Bill.

106 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

vituperation are supplied for argument; nick-names for facts; and vulgarity for humour. 59

Meanwhile, a counter-petition of"the burgesses and commonalty" in favour of the Bill60 had received 12, 165 signatures in two-and-a­half days. It informed the Lords that the Corporation's petition, purporting to communicate the views of " the Mayor, burgesses and commonalty", was actually the creation of the forty-three self-elected members of the Corporation. This petition traversed the usual array of grievances. It invited the Lords to remember the Corporation 's efforts to bolster its power, its indifference to languishing trade, its failure to regulate its expenditure by utilitarian principles, and above all , its complete lack of ra pport with the citizens.

Petitioning was becoming a mania . Maccoby calculates that by the end of the session there were 154,447 signatures to petitions in favour of the Bill and 26,534 against it. 6 1 The sponsors of the Bristol petition joined the queue of those who wanted to substantiate their allegations through counsel.

Before adjourning into committee the Lords consented to hear testimony from the representatives of the Corporation themselves. This was ma inly a delaying device, as it was unlikely a t this stage that anything new would be produced. When it was Bristol 's turn, Wetherell cross-questioned the Corporation's delegates, Alderman Fripp, Jr., and Daniel Burges, one of the City Solicitors, on 5 August. 62 This in itself was one of the interlocking absurdities: Wetherell's brief had been drawn up by the two witnesses, who then , in effect, testified to its veracity. 63 Most of the responses were pre­dictable. l t did not take much to elicit from Surges the admission that the Corporation was fulfilling all its duties in an exemplary manner. Its trusts were scrupulously applied in accordance with the wishes of the donors. With Surges, Wetherell developed the twin themes that justice in Bristol was administered faultlessly and that Common Councillors discharged their public duties with fidelity. " I know", Surges declared, " that the Corporation a lways do everything they can to promote the benefit of the City of Bristo l. " 64

Fripp was deta ined for only half the time. He was used to allay suspicion that funds had been improperly applied o r incompetently managed. The drift of some of Wetherell's questions was difficult

59 Mercury, 6 August 1835, p. 3. 00 See J . B. Kington. A Burgess's Letters. Municipa l Reform section, pp. 35-40. 0 1 S. Maccoby, English Radicalism 1832- 52 ( London, 1935), p . 135. 02 Wetherell was not a perfect choice fo r the part. As I. G. G ibbon wrote in "The

Centenary of Local Government: Some Reflections", Journal of the Institute of Public Administration, Vol. 13, October, 1935, p. 328, "the old Corporations ... failed to find an advocate, eloquent and of historical insight, a forensic Maitland , to state their case".

03 See Mercury, 15 August 1835. p. 3. A verbatim transcript of the evidence is contained in J. B. K ington, A Burgess's Le//ers, Municipal Reform Bill sect ion , pp. 4-34.

64 House oj Lords Joumals. LX V 11. 1835. p. 404.

The Advent of Reform 107

to follow. For example, having elicited from F ripp tha t no presenta­tion to a living had been sold to "build a theatre o r anything of that sort", Wetherell then interpolated " You consider a church a t the least o f it, to be as good a thing as a playhouse?"65 Wetherell finally ranged over the issue of trade a nd dues, his stra tegy being to highlight the selfless action of the Corporation in reducing the town d ues and the fact that the vast bulk of dues on t rade was levied by o ther independent bodies.

Many peers wished to kill the Bill outright, o thers preferred destructive altera tions. Egged on by Lord Lyndhurst, the Tories passed a series o f amendments that effectively nullified ma ny of the major propositions. Freemen's rights were to be preserved, the posi­tions of incumbent town clerks and aldermen gua ranteed fo r life, power to grant public ho use licences removed , a nd property qua li­ficat ions a ttached to councillo rs. Some peers revelled in humilia ting the Government. O thers, including Peel, feared a collision would result between the two Houses, and that there would be in ternal strife among the Tories. In T urbervi lle's view, ''The Peers might light-hea rtedly proceed upon a policy of ' lett ing th ings rip' a nd look upon it as hero ic; but that was no t statesmanship". 66 Saner counsels prevailed and a pract ical compromise was pa tched up. Pa rkes, who feared that a ll might be lost, espoused the pragma tic philosophy: ' 'squeeze all you can get o ut of them, a nd don' t stand on trifles". 6 7

He declared himself content. So in a ra ther subdued a tmosphere the deba tes ran their course and the measure passed into law on I 0 September.

In the last stages the Corpora tion was a passive specta to r as its fa te was debated. Some £400 from its shrinking funds- £2 1 0 on the deputa tion's expenses and £202 fo r law charges6 8- had gone in a vain pursuit o f exemption. The corporations were ma rked fo r a bo li­tion, but d ue to the exertions of those who lo bbied the Lords, something had been salvaged . The legisla tion as passed was by no means who lly beneficial for the Radicals. Collect ively it put a sub­stantial b ra ke on " the democratical principle" . Some Tories revived thei r d rooping spirits by arguing tha t it need only be the demise of an institu tion, no t of an outlook.

Impending d issolut ion was accepted with resignation and equa­nimi ty by the Bristol Corporation. When the Bill fi rst a ppeared, Vyvyan had been informed by his Bristol agent tha t the majo rity of Common Councillo rs had no great a nxiety to retain their sta tus. 69

Whether this was as self-elected o r elected councillors was no t sta ted. Their lack of enthusiasm is shown in the fact that half the members

0 ' Ibid., p . 412. •• A. S. Turbcrville, The House of Lords in the Age of Reform 1784-1837 (London,

1958), p. 357. 0 7 Ci ted in G. B. A. M. Finlayson, English Historical Review, Vol. LXXXI,

p. 687. •• Journal G 1832-1835, ff. 233 and 239. 09 Letter rrom J. Osbornc, 8 May 1835: Vyvyan Papers.

108 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

of the Corporation chose not to contest the inaugural election for the Town Council. 70 Neither the Court of Mayor and Aldermen nor the committee of the whole Common Council convened meetings to discuss the implications of the Act. The same thing happened in Swansea. Subsequent meetings were neither more frequent nor out of the ordinary. At the September meeting, the sole indication of anything unusual was the reappointment of the sitting Mayor and sheriffs to bridge the transitional period. 7 1

When the Council assembled for the last time on 9 December, it behaved with conspicuous dignity. Apart from the Mayor's slip · in forgetting to sign the minutes, it could have been a humdrum , normal meeting. No valedictory motions were presented nor speeches delivered. In any case, it would have been premature as the Mayor and the a ldermen, in their capacity of governors of the charities, continued in office until May 1836. But the real reason for the lack of " occasion" was that the members were too preoccupied to engage in any elabora te ceremony of dissolution . They were busy striving to ensure that whatever titles and forms were about to change, men of " station, substance and respectability" would con­tinue to occupy the seats of power.

Corporations faced the opposing temptations of either embarking on lavish expenditure to get rid o f their assets or of belatedly trying to curry favour with the/citizens. Leeds Corporation disposed of all its assets to certain agents, stipulating that the beneficiaries be selected Anglican churche~and charities. Southampton by contrast brought down its bonded debt to £ I ,800. 72 Bristol's Corporation did neither: back in March it must have seen the writing on the wall , but it did not materially modify its ways. Mayor and sheriffs were voted their agreed allowances in September and the Recorder his customary hundred guineas and hogshead of sherry or port for having effected the Gaol Delivery. 7 3 Sales of property amounted to £8,069, but a lthough this seemed a suspiciously large sum, it was onl y a continuation of the practice first resorted to in 1829. Thus the Corporation passed into extinction in a very tranquil and un­sensational fashion.

If anything, there was a modest effort to improve the Corpor­ation 's image fo r the very compelling reason that ha lf the members of the Corporation aspired to places on the first Town Council. It was prudent to minimize the handicap of having been associated with the Corporation . Several steps were taken for th is purpose. At the first meeting after the Bill had been introduced, it was again resolved to publish the accounts, and at its penultimate meeting the Corporation instructed the Chamberlain to prepare them "as soon

10 Infra, pp. 12 1-1 22. 71 P.C.C. 1832-1835, 15 September 1835. pp. 304-305. 12 D. Frascr, Politics in Leeds, p. 166 a nd A. Temple Patterson. A History of

Sowhampton. Vol. I. p. 177. - 3 P.C.C. 1832- 1835. 9 December 1835. p. 323.

The Advent of Reform 109

as possible" fo r a udit a nd publication.7 4 This resolution was never implemented . Even when "defence of its rights" was irrelevant , the Corporation recoiled from making its accounts public. The alterna­tives were non-publication or di sclosure of a year' s deficit of £1 ,000 (£9,000 but for the sale of assets), and a determined silence was the less likely to provoke an outcry. Moreover, the alacrity with which only months after a substantia l cut7 5 another revision of the town dues was undertaken was not unconnected with the Bill. Appreciation was expressed by the C hamber of Commerce, which urged the entire abolition of the remaining dues on exports "when finances permitted" . In fact, the fin ancial situa tion made further con­cessions unwise, but this was brushed aside by the Corporation. Total abo lition of export dues was recommended by the port charges committee in August and acceptance of the £500 a nnua l loss was ratified by the Common Council. 76

If th is was an attempt to placate influential groups in the com­munity, it misfired. Rather inconsistently, abolition of the Quay Warden 's and Water Bailiff's fees had been refused on the g rounds that it was inexpedient when the Municipal Corporations Bill was in transit. Using a similar logic, the Mercury branded the remission as illegal, 77 a pardonable piece of partisan extravagance. There was a cogent argument that it was imprudent for a body on the po int of dissolution to surrender any portion of its public revenue unilater­ally wi thout consulting its successor.

The legacy to the new Town Council was not particularly attractive. Reductions in town dues and disposal of assets were to leave it a seriously impaired income. 78 The Corporation 's bequest admittedl y covered the debt threefo ld , yet to meet liabilities of nearly £ 110,000, only a maximum of £20,000 in assets could be raised apart from property and estates. One critic upbraided the Corporation for passing on "a so lid debt of £87,928 18s. 3i d ., 7 9

although the precision of such book-keeping renders the figure suspect.

For reasons about which we can only speculate, the Corpora tion refrained from putting in order the accounts involving the cha rities. As a result the reformed Council was to endure years of dispute and litiga tion while the muddle was gradually sorted out. In the end, the ratepayers were forced to reimburse the Charity Trustees for the wrongdoings of a body over which they had exerted no contro l.

Another unwelcome gift was the chronic estrangement between the municipal body and the citizens. Such a pathy and disaffection was no t easy to overcome. Under the Act the Council was obliged

74 1bid ., 10 June 1835, p. 300 a nd 15 September 1835, p. 307. 7 5 Ibid ., 11 Ma rch 1835, pp. 276-282. '" Committee Book 18 19-1 835, 4 August 1835, pp. 335-336 a nd P.C.C. 1832-1 835,

15 Septem ber 1835. pp. 308-309. 77 Mercury, 22 August 1835. p. 3. '" lnj ra. pp. 153- 156. 70 '" Paul'", Epistles on Municipal Affairs, p. 37.

110 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

to organize and maintain a police force. lt cannot have con tem­plated with equanimity the defective force which the Corporation had established. The rather unco-ordinated administrative machine, crit icized by Kington and "Paul" as inflated and bedecked with ornamental positions, needed a serious overhaul if it was to play its proper role in the new era. All in all , what was passed on to the Town Council was a legacy of work, worry and debt. When to these were added the contraints of public scrutiny and statute, the immediate prospect was indeed austere.

PART T WO

THE BEGINNING OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM

C H AP T E R SEVEN

TH E C HA N GES IN 1835

The intention of the authors of the 1835 Act was to fashion it in to an instrument which would scourge the T ories, revitalize the Libera ls and set the pattern for further instalments of refo rm . In some respects the Act was curiously unradical. The abolition of the existing cor­porat ions and the introduction of the elective principle was revolu­tionary, yet in structure the new bodies bo re a close resemblance to their predecessors. Where a n undoubted funqamental cha nge had occurred was in the conception of the purpose of local government. Once again , local bodies were to be the " legal personification o f the local community represented by a Council elected by, acting fo r, and responsible to the inha bitants". 1 As the governing body of the borough, the Council existed fo r no other purpose. The Act decreed that the public interest was para mount, however much misguided councils might misinterpret, a buse, or tinker with it. To discourage any such waywardness, the Act introduced elements of popula r control. A centra l check was instituted over certa in acti vities, no tabl y the disposal of property. 2 Every new body was to be unifo rml y styled " the Mayor, Aldermen a nd Burgesses of . . . ", a nd the govern­ing section, the boro ugh counci(,3 was to consist of the Mayor a nd a stipula ted number of aldermen a nd councillo rs in the proportion of one to three.

All previous charters, grants and Acts tha t were inconsistent with the 1835 Act were repealed. But much of the fa miliar structure in Bristol emerged at least outwardly intact. For example, though every member of the Corporation was compelled to vaca te office, there was no thing to prevent them all being elected o r chosen for the first Council. Again, a ll the legal tra ppings of incorporation were to rema in with the Councils. 4 Thus the Act seemed to expect tha t local

1 Josef Redlich. Local Govemment in England, ed. F. W. H irst ( London. 1903), Vol. I. p. 124.

2 5 & 6 Will. IV, c.76. cl. XC IV (he reinafte r referred to as the M .C. Ac t. 1835). 3 Bristol editors a t the time preferred the term "Town Council ", a ltho ugh they

sometimes referred to it as " Cit y Council" o r "Corpo ra t ion". Fo r the purposes of clarity. this work will use the term " the Council".

• Sec J . R . Somers Vine, English Municipal Institutions: Their Gro 11·th and Development f rom 1835 to 1879 (London , 1879), pp. 3-4.

114 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

leaders, many o f who m had been members o f select corpo ra tio ns, wouid discard the notions o f secrecy and irrespo nsibility, and fa ith­fully practise the p ri nciple of government fo r the genera l good o f the bo rough. This was the expecta tio n , despi te the la rgely-unchanged institutional struc ture and the fact tha t o nly a na rrow section of the citizens had been admitted to the franchise .

The franchise was given essentia lly to ra tepayers of a t least thirty months' standing. T hose specificall y excluded by commo n law were luna tics and women, and the Act excluded freemen, unless they q ualified as ra tepayers, a nd recipients of parochia l relief. Thus neither no n-resident ratepayers no r no n-ra tepaying residents were deemed to have an in terest in the borough's affairs that called for them to be given the vo te. The burgesses, then, were no t syno ny­mo us with the ho useho lders, let a lo ne the adul t inha bi tan ts. By definin g those entitled to vote as the occupiers of sho ps a nd houses (significa ntl y no t tenements) ra ted for the previo us three years to poor re lief, provided a lways tha t they were resident ho useho lders wit hin seven miles of the boro ugh bo und ary, the Act ensured tha t no t even a bare majo rit y o f the adult male popula tion would be enrolled. In Birmingham and Ipswich in 1841 the burgesses were respec tively 3/ 0 and 5% o f the po pula t ion . 5 Sizeable bo ro ughs were divided into wards, the fixing of wh ich was en trusted to specia lly­a ppointed offic ials known a s revising barriste rs. 6 In a d ivided bo ro ugh an elector could vo te onl y in the ward where his property was situa ted.

The e lecto ra l sys tem d evised was no t who lly unsatisfactory by modern democra tic principles, fo r voting was direct and nomina lly each vote was wo rth the same. Plura l voting was a bandoned , but because in the case of Bristol the number o f councill ors re turned fo r each wa rd varied , the weig ht o f each individua l e lector's vo te was a lso likely to vary. Mathema tical calcula ti ons confi rm this. La ter, we will examine how thi s d isparity ha ndicapped the Liberals. 7 In Engla nd as a who le the net result o f the new franchise was tha t the municipal electo rate in 128 bo ro ughs totalled 124,000, while in 126 where bo unda ries coincided , the pa rl iamentary roll was 23,000 larger .8 Thus there was little substa nce in assert ions tha t the municipa l franchi se had been radica lly ex tended .9

Radical p rinciples were not in evidence when the new bo undaries were de termined . Fo rseeing tha t the introductio n o f contentio us a nd complicated bo undary proposals could delay o r even thwart the

5 E. F. l-l cnnock, Fi1 and Proper Persons: Ideal and Realily in Nine/eenlh-Cenlurr Urban Govemmenl ( London, 1973), p. 12.

'' Infra . p. 116. Bristol. of cour:.c. a lrcauy had wards. ' Infra. pp. 117- ll X.

• Lady (Ernes!) Simon. " The History of the Municipal Franchise". Journal of !he lliSiilllle of Public Adminislralion, 14 October 1936. p. 377.

° For a trea tment of the size, nature and development o f the municipal franchise after 1X35 see B. Kcith-Lueas, The English Local Governmelll Franchise, pp. 56-69 and 161-165.

The Changes in 1835 11 5

passage of the Municipal Corporations Bill , the Government a p­pointed a Royal Commission o n Municipal Bo undaries in July 1835. However, to b ridge the interval until it reported, a clause was inserted into the legisla tio n which legalized a ll existing bo undaries, except for those where the parliamentary boundaries were designated as the new municipal limits. Bristol was included in this latter cate­gory. The 3, 706 acres so added enlarged the area fivefold to 4,46 1 acres, and doubled the population to 110,000. Nearly a ll o f the main areas incorporated-Ciifto n, part of Westbury a nd the parts o f Bedminster, St. Paul , St. James and St. Philip and Jacob hitherto o utside the municipality- were a lready integral parts of the metro p­olis. John Aldridge and H. R. Brandreth, the commissioners, con­centrated on the twin issues of ward revisio n a nd distribution of counci llors. 1 0 They ruled that the mass of the a rea enclosed by the new line, i.e. the parliamentary constituency, was properly called " town" as it was almost devoid of agricultural land . Accordingly they reaffi rmed this line, fixed by 2 & 3 Will. IV, c.64, 11 as the boundary of the Bristo l Council, a nd its a rea remained stable until 1895.

Certain basic rules of management, intended to secure a business­like approach, were o utlined in the Act. Resolutio ns of the Council were legal only when sanctioned by a majority o f those present, the quorum being set at o ne-third of the total strength. If committees were employed , their decisions needed confirmation, and to comba t any laxity in the ho lding of meetings, a minimum of fo ur per year was stipula ted . Full accounts of finances were to be kept a nd a udited and an abstract annually published . It will be recalled that the Corporation's reluctance to divulge its accounts had swollen the ranks of its critics. Furthermo re, stringent conditions were p rescribed for the disbursement of Council fund s. Officeholders inherited from the expired body could be dismissed , subject to compensatio n, and a new staffi ng structure erected as seemed best. Another valuable clause, in view of past misdemeanours in Bristol, was that o f making officers accountable for all their actions, including mo ney handled , penalt ies being provided for non-observance. The Act was rather general in character. Detai ls were rarely sketched in , and councils were allowed to frame arrangements tailored to the particular ci r­cumstances. In providing only a broad fra mework , the Act sought to ensure that an efficient business procedure and sound working relatio nships would be developed. However, as one critic put it , the Act was " uninspired by any general theory a nd was tentative a nd confused". 12 It had to be continuall y a mended, a nd within two years

10 Infra. p. 11~ . 11 Sec Report of the Commissioners appointed to report and advise upon the howl­

dories and u•ards of certain boroughs and corporate tou·ns ( England and Wales) (Report on Bristol by John Aldridge and H. R. Brandreth), H.C .. 1837 (238). XXV I. The Bristol Encroachment Act of 1837 effectively conferred the title of ci ty on the enlarged area of Bristol.

12 K. B. Srnellie, A History of Local Govemmellf, p. 37.

116 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 I

an extensive Act of fifty clauses had to be passed . On one calculation, there were sixteen amending Acts by 1844.13 In a number of instances litigation resulted from the uncertainty surrounding the exercise of particular powers. 14 Quite na turally, councils were concerned over possible infringements of the law, and for the Bristol Council regular consulta tion wi th its legal advisers was for long the o rder of the day.

The first step in establishing the new Council was a visit by Crown-a ppointed barristers to divide the City, apportion councillors to wards and publicly revise the burgess list prepared by the parish overseers. The barristers in question were W. M . Praed, aged thirty­eight.and J . Greenwood , aged thirty-five, bo th of whom had at least ten years' experience in law. Subsequent revisions were to be in the hands of two assessors elected annually by the burgesses.1 5 T o obviate further party d iscord, it was in practice agreed to elect one assessor from each pa rty. Accordingly, interest focused on the revi­sion court's decisions, not on its composition.16 At the outset, the press disdained any interest in proceedings, apart from reporting the intense party struggle to ensure that the fin a l list contai ned every known supporter eligible and excluded every single opponent with dubious quali fica tions. Under acute pressure of time, Praed and Greenwood found it expedien t to pay most attention to the advice of the churchwardens respecting the division of the City into wards. 1 7

These parish officers were no t very impartia l and the wards they recommended reflected the existing parish boundaries. In mitigation of the decisions made by Praed and Greenwood, it should be sta ted that the revising barristers had been inst ructed to take account of the number of rated properties, as well as their value, in a llocating seats, and they had only limited la titude in defi ning the number of wards. 18 Furthermore, when the final propo a ls were announced at a public meeting and objections invited , none were forth­commg.

The product of the barristers' labour was a division of the City into ten wards electing in all fo rty-eight councillors. Bedminster, District, St. James, St. Michael, St. Philip and St. Paul had to rest content with three councillo rs each, Redcliffe and St. August ine were given six apiece, while Clifton a nd Bristo l (Central) were each allocated nine counci llo rs.

A table of ward sta tistics makes these discrepancies abundantly clear.

1 l B. Keith-Lucas, o p. cit., p. 52. •• E.g., 6 & 7 Vie., c.89 ( 1843); 15 & 15 Vie., c .S (1853). 1 ' 7 Will. IV and I Vie., c.78, cl. IV. 10 /nj ra, p. 145. 1 1 See speech of William Hera pa th a t the Libera l Associat ion meeting, I February

1836; Mercury, 6 February 1836, p. I. og M .C. Act 1835, cl. XXXIX-XLI .

The Changes in 1835 117

DATA RELATING TO I835 WARD DIVISION 10

Mean of Rated Properties No. of No. of Elects. rating data

Number Value Cllrs. Elects. per Cl/r. per Cl/r.2 0

Conservatives predominate :

St. Augustine 1,350 HO. I 57 6 335 56 £5,609 St. Michael 836 7,926 3 305 102 5,429 Ciifton 1,944 25,348 9 494 55 4,976 Bristol 2,7 15 41,446 9 870 97 7,622 Redcliffe 3, 122 27.508 6 5I7 86 9.788

9,967 £122 ,385 33 2.52 1 76-4 £6,729

Libera ls predo minate :

St. James 1,57 1 £ 14,976 3 41 3 137 £10,229 Bedminster 2,072 8,500 3 177 59 9,740 St. Paul 1,476 15,6I4 3 336 11 2 10, 125 St. Philip 3,700 15,310 3 432 144 17,437 District 1,1 40 18,285 3 315 I05 9,895

9,959 £72,685 15 1,673 Ill ·5 £11,485

Overall: 19,926 £195,070 48 4,193 87·4 £8,215

From any standpoint St. Augustine and St. Michael and part icularly Clifton were over-represented . Bela tedly the Liberals a nd thei r mouthpieces realized that these were wards of Conservative strength, and d rew no comfor t fro m the fact tha t Southa mpton Liberals were similarly sufferi ng. S. Waring, about to become an unsuccessful Liberal candida te, hastily visited the ba rristers in London to plead (in vain) fo r a revision. Complicated sta tistics produced by the Mercury purported to prove that while the a bove three wards had an unjustifiable surplus of six councillors, St. Philip and Jacob, a Liberal preserve, had been cheated of fo ur councillo rs. 2 1 As it happened, this bias ena bled the Conserva ti ves to secure a slender majority in the ina ugura l Council. Conflicting figures a bout the correct entitlement of councillors were published .

19 Figures ta ken respectively from Mercury , 12 December 1835, p. 3; J. Latimer, Nineteenth Century Annals, p. 209; Journal, 26 December 1835, p. 3. All have been corroborated.

20 Mean derived from sum of (a) va lue of rated properties and (b) number of rated properties ( x I 0).

2 1 Mercury, 12 December I835, p. 3.

11 8 Bristol and its Municipal Go vernment 1820-1851

ESTIMAT ES O F A LLOCATION O F CO UNCILLORS TO WA RDS

Average Deviat ion from 1835 division

M .C. O ver- Under-By Mer- Liberal Boundary repre- repre-Act cury22 meeting2 3 Report 2 4 semed sented

Conservatives predominate:

St. Augustine 6 H 4·1 3-67 2·28 S t. Michael 3 2· 1 1·98 2·54 0·79 Clifton 9 7·0 5-46 H 2·25 Bristol 9 8·3 8·37 8·7 1 0·54 Redcl ifTe 6 6·5 7·15 5·64 0-43

Liberals predominate:

St. James 3 3· 1 3· 73 3·3 1 0·38 Bedminste r 3 3 7 3· 54 3 2 1 0-48 St. Paul 3 3·2 3-69 3 38 0-42 S t. Philip 3 7·2 6· 22 6·9 1 J 78 District 3 2·9 3-62 2·61 0·04

The Liberals staged a mass ra lly in the G uildha ll to protest against the injustice. Petitions praying fo r the unequal ward division to be rectified were addressed to bo th the Government and Parlia ment. The petitions went unanswered. More powerful ammunition became available in 1837 with the issue of the boundary commissioners' Report. This tacitly admitted the inequity of the 1835 distribution by proposing a scheme of eight wards each returning six council­lo rs. 2 5 Only one ward was to devia te by more than one council­lo r from the allocation it was entitled to under the principles o f the 1835 Act, but this more rational solution was disa llowed by His Majesty in Council. The wa rd distribution was to be a residua l handi­cap which affected the Liberals fo r decades.

With elections pending, the Libera ls could not affo rd to spend much time in recrimin ations. Once the select electo rate o f 4, 193 had been finalized, choosing of the candida tes and wooing of the voters proceeded in an atmosphere of fervent enthusiasm. Huge crowds­a bove 400 in Bristo l ward- flocked to nomina tion meetings. 26 Both sides were on guard for any " parlia mentary election tricks", and inspired more by idealism than an apprecia tion of realities, a move-

" Ibid. 23 Quo ted in J. B. Kington, A Burgess ·s Le tiers, Municipal Corpo ration Reform

section, p. 29. 24 T he Commissioners based their calculations on an estimate of · ·how important''

the existing wards were. 2 5 lt also felt constrained to comment on the a lmost unique position o f Bristol

in tha t its Co unc il complement (48 counc illo rs a nd 16 alde rmen) was not a simple multip le of the number of wa rds ( 10). See art icle in M irror, 27 January 1838. p. 3.

26 Gazelle, 13 Decembe r 1835. p. 3.

The Changes in 1835 119

ment began to select th ose best fitted fo r office regardless of allegiance. As in Southampton, it soon petered out. No conspicu­ously-independent candida te emerged , although a handful were endorsed by both factions. Most " popular" was M. H . Castle, who was doubly nominated for three wards, from one of which he with­drew. Again , in a few wards opposition to the predominant party was reckoned futile a nd the minority party did no t bother to nominate for every seat. 2 7 Similarly, in a few cases unofficia l candi­dates attached themselves to the favoured party, hopeful that a majority of electors might th rough confusion or creduli ty prefer them to those on the official ticket.

The best pa rt of a month was consumed by the campaign, a tribute to the paucity of alterna tive entertainment as well as to the signifi­cance of the occasion. It bore all the ma rks of a rousing, pa rliamen­tary contest. Warnings against vote-splitt ing were uttered with deadening frequency. Walls were plastered with placards, puffs and broadsides. One Conservative production was couched in horse­racing parla nce:

No. I TR UE BLUE. This is a fi ne o ld horse a nd well known on the course, having come in first for the Alderman's pla te, fo r many years, he will be backed by the Old Constitutional interest and is expected to gain the "Church and King" plate- ... though past age yet being ridden by tha t ad miral [sic] jockey, Thomas D .... I, he will , it is expected, distance a ll competito rs for the Mayor's Plate. No. 6 RADICAL. Got by "Spouter" out of " Jacobin" dam by Insignificance; has no cha nce, as his Jockey John W. H . 11 is o ld and deaf, and in short a ltogether unused to first rate Jockeyship. 28

The writer was no prophet: John Wesley Hall cantered in as a councillor for St. James.

Accusations of bribery, intimida tion a nd o ther ma lpractice poured forth in abundance and overwhelmed pleas fo r non-politica l selec­tion of proven businessmen and traders. In the cause of nonpartisan­ship Kington under the nom de plume "A Burgess" , wrote six addresses on corporate reform. 29 His gra tuitous advice was that political sentiments were unreliable as a test of fitness fo r office. Churchwardens were a lleged to have canvassed as pa rish officers in the Conservative cause. Not to be o utdone, the M ercury claimed that the Conservatives had promised a post in the new police fo rce if a certain electo r and his fam ily would vote as required. Later the

27 Viz., Liberals in Cli fton (5/9) a nd St. Michael (2/3); Conservatives in St. Philip, St. James a nd District (all 2/3).

28 Volu me of Broadsides 1789-1 848. 20 See '' Intimidation' ' by R. C. Stokes, 24 December 1835 in ibid. a nd J. B. K ington,

A Burgess's Le11ers. Letter I. p. 4 .

120 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

same paper rightly questioned the ethics of appointing the house of the retiring mayor, Charles Payne, as polling station for Clifton, when he himself was a candidate. 30

The Conservatives fought a subdued , reargua rd action . The party's strategy was to blunt the Libera l offensive, which blackened those opposed to municipal reform. "Such a crew," the Liberals asserted, "would be unable to abide by the principles inherent in the Act. Let such elements in and the structure would be betrayed from within." In terms of policy, the Libera ls urged "the most rigid economy" consistent with ' 'justice" a nd, ra ther incongruously, ' 'liberality". 31 It was a lleged that the Conservatives were indelibly tainted with the canker of irresponsibility and secrecy, which even extended to the private selection of candidates. For providing such ammunition the Conservati ves themselves were partly responsible. One pamphleteer32 described the pending election in the imagery of an auction sale, with the goods awaiting disposal being " the whole of the stock-in-trade Late in the care of a firm placed in Schedule A" .

Bidders should treat with contempt some of the goods on offer, including Lot I A number of COCKED HATS and SCARLET GOWNS,

trimmed with Fur, lately worn by a set of silly old Gentlemen, who fancied themselves the "collective wisdom" of the city. Lot 6 A few FLAGS and BANNERS marked "Church and St~te", " King and Constitution", "No Popery", " Our absent friend s", viz. " Honor and Honesty", and others equa lly trite and impres­SI Ve.

In the prevailing climate of reform it was impossible to combat this effectively, so the·Conservatives, as in many other pl'ilces, resorted to the argument of quasi-divine right. They did their utmost to dissociate themselves from the old Corpora tion's stigma and rested their appeal on a platform which extolled the breeding, business acumen and wealth of their candida tes. They were, according to party propaganda, " men of station and respectability, men of sub­stance and property".33 Thi s amplitude of experience, integrity and prudence could be relied upon by the voters.

lt seemed a strange decision to hold the elections on Boxing Day, 1835, but the actual polling was devoid of any untoward incidents.

The results confirmed the lesson taught by a half-century of parliamentary conflict: namely, that in terms of the support they could muster, the two parties stood level. As to the precise outcome of the elections, there was some confusion , mainly because of a rather loose definition of what constituted party allegiance. " A majority of twenty-six to twenty-two for the Conservatives," claimed

3 0 Ga:e11e, 26 ovember 1835. p. 3: Mercury, 5 and 26 December 1835, p. 3. " Resolution of St. James· ward burgesses, Gazelle, 3 December 1835. p. 3. 31 Broadside headed ·· Important Sale··. Volume of Newscuttings 1747- 1864. 33 On this question generally see E. P. Hennock. Fit and Proper Persom , pp. 308-312.

The Changes in 1835 121

the Journal. " Liberals twenty-six, Conservatives eighteen and six doubtful ," retorted the M ercury . An analysis o f the votes cast a t parlia menta ry elections by the successful candidates for the Council reveals an exciting dead-heat- twenty-four on each side. It appeared that three of the Liberals hovered on the fringe of their party, which, however, could depend on them over crucial issues. As the situa tion clarified, the six "doubtfuls" identified by the M ercury all declared their loyalty to the Conservatives. For the Liberals this was gloomy enough, but what eventually undid them was one erstwhile Libera l, later bitterly described as " a political weathercock", who was dis­creetly and tentatively shifting into the Conservative camp.

In no way could the result be interpreted as "a glo rious triumph for reform ", yet the Liberals probably captured a majority of the total vote- by I ,946 votes to I ,820 if ward by ward the highest votes are aggregated. 34 As the Conservatives captured sixteen of the eighteen seats in the over-represented wards, protests by their adver­saries about gerrymandering were perfectly nat ural. But fo r the distorted ward division, the Liberals would certainly have gained control with a comfortable majority of six or more.

The turnout at the election was exceptionally high and was nea rly 80% of the registered voters. Generally, there was a slight in verse ratio between size o f wa rd a nd the number o f voters: Bristol (Central) ward, for which a poll book exists, recorded 73%. One party or the other swept the boards in seven constituencies, viz., Liberals in St. James, Distric t , St. Paul and St. Philip; Conservatives in St. Michael, St. Augustine and Clifton (by seven to two). Only in Redcli ffe, Bristo l (Conservative by four to two a nd five to four respectively) and Bedminster (Liberal by two to one) was representa­tion spread at all evenly.

As befi tted the minute size of the electorate, ma rgins between defeat and success were often quite slender and in five wards the gap was less than double figures. One indication of the sway that party exerted was the fact tha t voters overwhelmingly voted for a single party rather than spreading their support. (On average, in Leeds only I 0% split their vo te.) In the biggest ward , Bristol, 424 of the 638 voters chose either nine Liberals or nine Conservatives, and 128 of the remainder opted for seven or eight from one list. Apprehension or ambition impelled seven of the thirteen candidates in this ward who voted to declare for themselves as well as for the eight candidates from their own party. The other six omitted their own name fro m the selection they made. 35

Those who had been members of the fo rmer Corporation met a mixed reception. Twenty stood, and six (five Conservatives and one

34 Factors such as incomple te tickets, cross voting and the absence of poll books make any firm conclusio ns suspec t. See G. W. A. Bush. The Old and the Ne11·, fn . 4, p. 348.

35 Figures calculated from A List of Burgesses who voted for the election of Cowl­cil/ors for the Bristol Ward. December 26th 1835 (Bristol: n.p. , 1835).

122 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

non-party man) were defeated. Fripp, Daniel's protege for leader­ship, and Pinney, unhappily immortalized as Mayor when the 183 1 Riots occurred, suffered this indignity. By contrast, Payne, the retiring Mayor, headed the poll in C lifton, and Daniel, " the king of Bristol", did likewise in St. Augustine.

There were still important events to come. Until they had picked the other constituent parts of the municipal body- the a ldermen and then, in conjunction with them, the Mayor- the forty-eight elected councillors36 could not legally act as the Council. Politically, a stale­mate seemed to prevail, and there was much speculation as to how this could be broken. At the historic meeting of the fo rty-eight councillors on the last day of 1835 Daniel took the chair by unani­mous acclaim. He was venerable but no Moses, and there was much floundering as to how to proceed with the selection of aldermen.

Both sides chivalrously disclaimed party interest in one breath and then in the next dema nded eq ua l aldermanic representation. 37

Fortified by their popular support , the Liberals wanted their due. Earlier, blunt warnings had been issued by the pa rty press that if the Conservatives triumphed they would monopolize the a ldermanic section and thus establish an impregnable position fo r the forseeable future . Kington believed that a mistake in selecting aldermen would be irretrievable for six years. 3 8 What ultimately happened exceeded these sombre predictions.

The first move had to be made. As a feeler, Willia m Fripp was proposed by the Conservatives. The result- twenty-four for and the same against- suggested an impasse. There was then an agreemen t to compile two lists and submit individual nominations in turn, a method which enabled five na mes, including Pinney's, to pass un­challenged . He was generously no minated by the Liberals, though at this stage his political sentiments were an enigma. When the third Liberal, Willia m Tothill , a Quaker merchant prominent in the Political Union at the time of the Reform Bill and the Rio ts, was nominated, a division was demanded. When the vote was taken, Christopher George, an o ld-style Whig a nd the " politica l weather­cock" previo usly mentioned, appeared among the Conservatives. George, one of the final additions to the o ld Corporation, had the dual distinction of voting Whig and Tory in the 1835 parlia mentary election and being married to Fripp's sister.39 His defection , while not causing universal astonishment, secured T othill 's rejection by twenty-five votes to twenty-three. Thereafter each group aligned itself en masse against the o ther's nominations, except fo r two occa­sions when the frustrated Liberals tried to sow confusion by pro-

36 Unless stated otherwise, the term "councillor" will refer to both sections elected councillors and aldermen.

37 See Journal, 2 Ja nuary 1836, p. 2. 38 See Mercury, 26 November 1835. p. 3 and Ga:elle. 24 December 1835, p. 3:

J . B. Kingt on, A Burgess's Leu ers, Letter 3, p. 12. 30 Wills Proved . Volume 30 (January-J uly 1866), p. 493.

The Changes in 1835 123

posing unlisted Conservatives, who, however, declined to stand . The Conservatives- or more truly, George, a llowed only two more Liberals, Thomas Stock and J ohn Ma ningford, to be elected alder­men .

At the end of the tumult, the result was twelve Conservatives, three Liberals and one whose poiitics were uncertain. The Act probably envisaged the a ldermanic complement as senior civic states­men who would be a steadying influence on, and hence an advisory panel to, the elective element. By taking most of the places, the party which fortuitously preva iled at the crucial meeting to appoint the firs t aldermen in effect nega ted the purpose of the legislation. Bristol was in this respect no t unique.40 What made tempers worse was the investing as aldermen of no fewer than eleven (nine Conservative, two Liberal) unsuccessful candidates for Council, four of whom were former members of the Corporation. Thus with a solita ry excep­tion (J . Lax), every member of the defunct body desirous of serving on its successor was accommodated. All this was an affront to the declared will of the electorate and was no t calculated to moderate passions. The Liberals were furious. " Wisdom and Toryism have no affinity," stated the M ercury.41 It went further: by dragging in the "veriest hacks of the o ld system" the Conservatives had used as their criterion no thing -better than " proverbial incompetence" . 4 2

In th is intensely partisan mood, the Libera ls vowed that their opponents would be made to pay.

Election of the inaugural Mayor, the final stage in the process of fo rming the Council, was fixed for I January 1836. Now, wi th a commanding majority, the Conservatives wanted to select Daniel. His past services to Bristo l had been great, but he had spared him­self even less in the o rganizing of local Toryism. In a calmer atmosphere, the Liberals might have acquiesced, but in the circum­stances they raised numerous objections: Daniel was seventy-two years of age; by his own admission his faculties were impaired; there was some question over his eligibility for Council since he a nd others were members of the Merchant Venturers, which by virtue of the wharfage lease, was in contract with the Council. However, the threats to take the question to court were not carried o ut. All objections were brushed aside and Daniel received thirty-eight votes as against twenty-two cast for the Liberal nominee, Thomas Stock.4 3

To complete the partisan triumph, another Tory, Daniel Cave, a son and nephew of two former members of the Corporation was, by a thirty-five to twenty-five majori ty, installed as sheriff in preference to a Whig accounta nt, George Bengough.

To elect a man Mayor just to bestow a compliment seemed point-

40 B. Keith- Lucas, The Local Government Franchise, p. 188. 4 1 Mercury, 9 Ja nuary 1836, p. 3. 4 2 ' ' Paul"', Epistles on Corporate Proceedings, p. 10. 4 3 Journal, 2 January 1836. p. 2. Rather curiously, G eorge voted for Stock. but

o f course the issue was no longer in doubt.

124 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

less. As was widely anticipated, Daniel sensibly declined the honour, probably not without regret. 44 For such a contingency the Conserva­tives must have been prepared. William Fripp was duly nominated. He was seconded by Stock, who argued that the exigencies of the situation made it vital for the chief dignitary not to assume office in an atmosphere of factionali sm. This cut the ground from under the feet of the less conciliatory Liberal- Radicals, who could only sullenly acquiesce while Fripp was chosen unanimously. Consola ti on came in the form of an implicit undertaking, at least by Pinney and Richard King and several unidentified Conservatives, to vote for Stock "on some future occasion" . 4 5 Whether this constituted a pact was later the subject of protracted wrangling.

On past performances, Fripp's suitability was debatable. "Paul" in his Epistles showed a fine disregard for libel: he declared qui te bluntly that no person was more unfitted for office. It was alleged that Fripp was ignorant of the crushing burden of taxes on trade and had a strong penchant fo r playing the dictator. Yet he was immensely experienced, having served in every capacity during twenty-one years on the o ld Corporation . He was a n extremely wealthy soap manufacturer and at fift y he was in his prime. Balanced against this was his summary rejection by the voters, probably because of his association with, and commitment to, the unreformed system.

What put the Liberals badl y out of temper and culminated in litigation to test his eligibility for office4 6 was his uncontrollable urge to promote his party. The circumstances called for conciliation, yet Fripp in his inaugural speech impulsively made a biting, polemical harangue. He could have indulged in a few platitudes or made lofty appeals for co-operation in tackling the formidable tasks ahead. Instead, he lauded the Tory party, particularly fo r championing " the holy Protestant religion", and castigated the Liberal press for "having discharged its poisonous arrows" against him.47 He deemed it monstrous that Daniel had been opposed , and he berated James C unningham, Stock's nominator, for letting " political agitation and party feeling" gain a temporary "ascendancy over his reason" . A more untimely speech could hardly have been made. It must indeed , as the Mercury described it, have crea ted "an extraordinary sensa­tion", sacrificing for " the gratification of pri va te or party spleen" ''a moment especially favourable for conciliation".4 8

Such intemperate partisanship did not seem designed to heal wounds or engage the support of Bristolians in making the new system work effectively. Man y were ala rmed at the prospect of

44 Letter from T . Daniel ; P.C. (I ). 11 January 1836. pp. 9-12. 45 Gazette. 7 Ja nuary 1836, p. I. 4 6 As court cases sometimes do, thi s dragged on and by the time the quo u-arranto

writ was released Fripp no longer occupied the office . See infra. p. 145. 4 1 A verbatim report is contained in the Journal, 16 Ja nuary 1836, p. 2. 4 8 Mercury , 16 January 1836, p. 3. The Gazette (14 Ja nua ry 1836, p. 3) was a lso

totally condemnatory.

The Changes in 1835 125

po litical and sectarian prejudices finding an outlet in Council pro­ceedings. The Conservatives had attained their ends fo r the moment and they needed to mollify the Liberals. For many Liberals, Fripp's tirade was the last straw, and they determined on re taliation and waging a party struggle. There was no excuse for creating such an atmosphere. The bad beginning fo r the new system sapped the will to tackle the serious pro blems confronting the city.

CHAPTLR liGHT

THE STRUCTURE AND POLITICS OF THE COUNCIL

Bristol's new Council was in both numbers and proportions of councillors and aldermen essentially a replica of the body it suc­ceeded. Only the sheriffs were missing. 1 However, by comparison with the Corporation, eligibility for the Council was rather restricted. Council officers and those possessing an interest in a municipal contract were barred, as were clergymen, whom the old Corporation had earlier made ineligible by a resolution in 1821. Absentees, bank­rupts and insolvents were compelled to vacate office. Above all, there was the property qualification. Burgesses m a city the size of Bristol had to enjoy an estate worth at least £I ,000, or their property be rated at a minimum of £30 for valuatiOn purposes, before they could aspire to a Council seat. 2 Duly elected candidates who refused to take their seats could be fined 3 £100 for Mayor, £50 for a ldermen and councillors. Prior to 1851 there was only one instance of a fine actually being imposed on James G ibbs in 1850.

The Mayor was to be elected annually by and from the Council. He presided ex officio over its meetings, was a Justice of the Peace and chaired the revision court which fixed the burgess roll. 4 Not until 1853 was he allowed to appoint a deputy-mayor in case of absence of illness. 5 To ensure an clement of continuity, retirement of the sixteen aldermen at the end of their six-year term was staggered. The original contingent was selected by the elected coun­cillo rs and thereafter by the entire Council, so that an element of eo-option still remained. The only exclusive function of aldermen was the right to preside at municipal elections on behalf of the Mayor. Only the forty-eight councillors occupied seats by the wish of the enfranchised, expressed each I ovember (or if a Sunday, the following Monday). Each year the third which had served longest

'Clause LXI of the Act pro,1dcd for ccnam C ounc1b. mcludmg Bristol. to appomt a ;,hcriff. However. he v.us na longer e.\ of/lc/0 a member of the Council lie \\liS

the Kmg's officer and hi> duttes v.crc to sec that the i\ssJ7es \\ere properly held and to act as presiding officer at the clccuons.

2 "'f.C. Act 1835. cl. XXVIII. 1 Old age and recent service v.ere allO\\Cd a> exempt tom from fines. • 'VImor duties included pubh;,hmg ch:ctJon results and appomting one of the

auditors. ' 16 & 17 Vie .. c.79. cl VII

The S1ruc1ure and Polifics of 1he Council 127

retired,6 an equitable a rrangement which a llowed for both continuity l and a three-year term. It also encouraged the political parties to be more mindful of the electora te. Aldermen could become elected councillors, and vice versa, but they could not fill both positions simultaneously. Any candidate was free to stand in more than one ward, but a dual or trip le success- attempted but not achieved in Bristol prio r to 185 1- meant that the successful candidate had to chose which ward he would represent.

Until 185 17 there was an unbroken run of Conservative-Anglican Mayors. They were usually in their mid-fifties, the o ldest being sixty­seven and the youngest thirty-nine, and they no rmally came from the ranks of elected counci llors. Being Mayor was not the penulti­mate step before retirement from the Council, as the average length of service after stepping down was twelve years. With the notable exceptions of John (later Sir John) Haberfield,8 who was Mayor six times in thi rteen years, a nd William Fripp a nd J ames George, who were Mayors under the defunct system, the mayoralty was held only once by each occupant. For the first four years the Libera ls nominated their most emi nent "non-party" counci llor, and in 1836, Thomas Stock , whose vote was swollen by the adherence of several " halfway house" men , fai led to be chosen by only thirty votes to twenty-nine. Calls to honour the pledge to share the mayoralty pro­duced no Conservat ive response, and from 1839 the depleted Liberals let the dominant group work its wi ll unhindered. No further contest \ occurred for forty- th ree years.

A small, semi-anonymous cabal o f councillors, among them Ja mes Gibbs a nd Robert Phippen, were known as " mayor-makers". 9

What principles they opera ted on are unknown, but there was never a queue of eager contenders, as there were several disagreeable features of the o ffice. Three or four business hours were required daily, and Fripp, for one, attended almost every committee. Also at risk was personal weal th. The regime of economy dictated savage cuts in the Mayor's salary from £ I ,604 to £700, and then to £400 in 1837_1° One pecuniary effect was to make the chief dignitary "considerably out o f pocket" . 1 1 Despite restoration of the allowance to £700 in 1843, inducements were still paltry. In 1847, with the cupboard seemingly bare, the " mayor-makers" turned in despera tion to Haberfield , rapid ly becoming an o ld stand-by. With obvious sarcasm, the Mercury suggested an advertisement in the local press soliciting for a Mayor, or, as a last resort, the office being conferred on Ha berfield in perpetuity. 12 Several believed to be on the next

6 To set the system in mo tion in 1835. one-third of the counci llors were elected fo r a single year, a nd another third fo r two years.

7 Infra. p. 149. 8 Infra . pp. 135- 136. • Gazelle, 6 November 185 1, p. 5. 10 P.C. (2), 9 November 1837, p. 177. 11 Mirror, 11 November 1843, p. 8. 12 Mercury , 6 November 1847. p. 8.

128 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

year's .. little list" noised it around that the £ I 00 fine was preferable to serving as Mayor . Councillo rs intensively engaged in trade o r commerce perha ps had an excuse fo r refusing to serve, and in fact, of the twelve Mayors, six were retired and three, including Haber­field , were atto rneys. In spite of the difficulty in finding Mayors, those chosen evidently did their duty. When Ja mes G ibbs relin­quished office in 1843 the entire Council rose to its feet to the accompaniment of volleys of cheers. Even Fripp by d iligence and grinding hours rehabilitated himself to such a degree that if he had been willing, the Liberals would have accepted him for a second term in 1837.13

Because the aldermen performed no distinct functions, a detailed ana lysis of their background is no t wa rranted. Of the thirty-eight involved, a ll except five were Conservatives and all except seven, Anglicans. On average, they served nearly two terms, wi th Pinney, Edward Harley, J ohn Vining, Ha berfield, Gibbs and George Franklyn occupying seats throughout the period, although the latter three were a t some stage councillo rs. Inevi tably, the average age rose- fifty years in 1835, fifty-five in 1840, and fifty-eight in 1845, but thereafter it was more stable. Undoubtedly the most significant sta tistics relate to the a ldermen's previous experience. On appoint-

'

ment the vast majority were novices in municipal work, a nd almost all had been losers in contests fo r elective seats on the Council. Robert Lilly, the most no torious in this group, was rejected four times in as many years by the electo rs. By contrast, only five of the a ldermen were fo rmer elected councillo rs, so it is fair to say that

1 an a lderma nic seat was a consolation prize fo r Conservatives unable to win the electo rate's a pprova l. Many aldermen found exemption from the need to secure periodic endorsement from the electo rs so congenia l that they remained on the Council until they died o r were ejected by the Conservative selecti on committee. Among the alder­men there was open admira tion fo r their three fo rmer aldermen, Ha berfield , G ibbs and George F ranklyn, who re-emerged as elected councillo rs.

The founda tion Council comprised thirteen former common councillo rs, seven fo rmer aldermen and forty-three newcomers. 1 4

Throughout the period being studied, 1 5 162 burgesses served on the Council , 124 as councillo rs, twenty-nine as aldermen, and nine as bo th. An overwhelming proportion (78%) entered the Council on their first a ttempt, a lthough at the o ther extreme, three tenacious individua ls tried five times before they were rewarded . About 80%

t of elected councillo rs contested only a single ward during their municipal career, and most of the remainder moved around in pursuit of better electora l prospects. As regards d ura tion of service, there is no typical councillor. Within the sixteen years under review,

1 3 Gazelle, 20 November 1836, p. 3. 14 Of whom six had bee n ··called '' to the Corporation. but had no t answered . " Up to the election of I November 185 1, but excluding those ten fi rst elected.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 129

the average wa!l 6· 3 years, twelve councillors serving throughout. However, if overall service is calculated with no artificial terminal year, the average rises to I 0·6 years. On this basis, I 04 councillors served for less than a decade, thirty-four served for between ten and twenty years, while twenty-four served for more than two decades. Even after the first influx of newcomers in 1835, there was normally a reasonable number entering the Council without any prior service. Such members were returned for about half the sixteen elective seats contested annually, and a similar figure applies to the triennial changeover of aldermen. The majority of councillors never experi­enced a setback on the hustings. Of the fifty-four who did endure defeat, most were either rewarded with an aldermanic seat or found the electors more receptive on a later occasion. Only six councillors abandoned municipal life after their initial defeat. Most councillors retired of their own accord at the end of a term, but seven died in office, eleven failed to win an election, two departed in mysterious circumstances, and three were disqualified because of bankruptcy. In general, the typical councillor represented only a single ward in his career, wh1ch stretched out to a decade. He was accepted at the first time of presentation and left the Council of his own volition without the stigma of defeat. 16

One consequence of the statutory qualifications for councillors was that, as the following table illustrates, their socio-economic characteristics were not seriously different from those of their predecessors.

OC(l PAl ION 01- COU CILLORS 1835-l!l51 11

Aclll'e in Retired during l'ocation term of office 0

o of Total

Merchant> 51 7 35·5 'vlanufacturcrs 24 3 16·5 Profe>s•onal 19 6 15 5 NO JOb 24 15 0 'v1Jscellaneous commerc1al 12 4 100 Bre\\ers 4 4 50 Sugar refiners 3 I 2·5

Total 11 3 49

Bristol as a commercial city had a merchant Council, although there was a leavening of manufacturers and professional men. 18 Retail

'6 1-or further on the nature of serv1ce see G. W. A. Bush, The Old and the Ne".

pp. 373-381 "Calculated pnnc1pall) from Mattheii ·s·s Directones, Poll 8ool...1. and details of

mcoming councillors entered in the Proceedings of the Council. '" Cl11ef among the categories were: Merchams: West India 7; metal 6; wine 6;

wholesale grocery 5; oil 4; Manufacturers: tobacco 5; glass 4; chemical J, metal J; tanning 3: Profe.wonal attorneys 15; doctors 8.

130 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

I tradesmen, probably the most numerous individual class among the burgesses, were conspicuous by their a bsence. Several trends were significa nt. The representa tion of sugar refiners and brewers dwindled, but they were replaced by a stream of men engaged in miscellaneous commercial pursuits and by surgeons, docto rs and

fj atto rneys, so much so that by 1845 atto rneys a lone comprised 20%

of the Council. Ha berfield 's legal firm was rema rkable as a municipal t raining ground: four of his a rticled clerks 19 also served as council-lors. Not until 1852, when W. H. Gore Langton, the Mayor, broke the sequence, did an M .P. a lso serve on the Council. The diversity of the background of councillo rs may be gauged from the fact tha t a t vario us times the Council conta ined an o rgan builder, a ho t springs proprieto r , a County Court t reasurer, a Liberal Association secre­ta ry, a philosophical chemist , a newspaper proprieto r, a n admiral in H.M . Navy and a retired Indian Army general.

Whatever the o ther effects o f the reform of 1835, it did no t in Bristol's case bring to the fore a group of councillo rs who lived in a decidedly-humbler style than the a ffluent merchants. On the con­tra ry, ma ny of the new generation of councillors were immensely wealthy. More councillo rs died leaving esta tes valued in excess o f

( £50,000 than d ied worth less tha n £5,000.20 Only 7% left less than £ I ,000, while a t the o ther extreme, twelve councillo rs, a ll but one of them mercha nts o r ma nufacturers, died with fortunes worth more than six figures. Bankruptcy a ffected fo ur councillo rs, William Davies, Edward Staples, and in conjunction, Ja mes Franklyn and William Acrama n, partners in a shipbuilding fi rm, the colla pse of

J

which in 1842 reverberated around the city. 2 1 Overa ll , councillo rs had , o r were making, so much money that they could affo rd not to be obsessed by it.

Nonconformists did no t domina te the municipal chamber. This was la rgely a coro llary of the Conservatives' retention of control, but many of the Libera ls adhered at least nomina lly to the Estab-lished C hurch. Following removal of disabili ties imposed on the Jews, no religious ba rriers existed , but as the following table indica tes the Anglicans re ta ined numerical supremacy. Unitari ans staged something of a comeback but the representat ion of Dissenters as a I whole remained stationa ry at 20%. As councillo rs, they, and in particular the Qua kers, tended to be a ble, act1 ve and voc1t erous. Roma n Catholics had still to a ppear. J . G . Shaw remarked a t an 1850 C ouncil meeti ng tha t among the members were "gentlemen who were no t C hristians a t a ll , but who were ad mitted simply as

19 J. E. Da vies (comp.). M emorials of J . K. Haberfield, p. 34 (City Archives). 20 Based on in formation extracted from Probate Acts (Somerset House) and Wills

Proved (City A rchives). 2 1 See P.C. (4), 3 August 1842. p. 249: P.C. (5), 6 May 1846, pp. 297-298; Gazette,

29 June 1843, p. 3.

The Structure and Politics of the Council

R ELI G IOUS AFFI LIATIO OF CO U C ILLO RS 1836- 185 12 2

Anglican (including 5 probable) Unitarian Quaker Wesleyan Baptist I ndcpcndcnt Jew Uncerta in (Anglican/Unitaria n?)

Number 127 15 5 5 4 3 2 I

0 0

78 9·25 3 3 2·5 2 1·5 0·75

13 1

good citizens". 23 Apart from the allusion to the two Jewish coun­cillors then present , his comments probably reflected the growing secularism of the era, a nd hinted a t the arrival of purely nominal Anglicans o r even unashamed atheists.

Popula r election sha ttered the prevailing pattern of famil y service I in the municipal body. Because a seat could no longer be reserved for a son, brother o r cousin, many " household" names almost synonymous with the old Corporation dropped out of sight. A few families did no t immediately sever their connection- for example, Castle, Fripp, Da niel, George, Goldney, Hilhouse, Pinney, Savage, Yaughan and Wait. Heredity was no longer a valid guara ntee of admission, but this did not preclude some families from acquiring a reputation for producing councillors. Eight sets of brothers, 24 eight fathers and sons2 5 and several sets of a more remote linkage were numbered among councillors during the period. The available evi­dence concerning relationships shows tha t thirteen families contri­buted two councillors each, three contributed three each a nd, remarkably, the Ricketts contributed four. F rom this la tter fa mily, four bro thers served within nine years, three as aldermen and three concurrently. Several councillo rs were related by marriage, a nd the naming of fellow councillors as executo rs of wills was evidence of social ties. The circles that the municipal elite moved in might well \ have multiplied , but they still overla pped.

As before 1835, residences of members were clustered in the con­t iguous Clifton, Redland and Park Street districts. Here lived 60% of counci llors: by 1850, nearly 40% resided in C lifton alone. Sixteen or so councillors lived in other suburbs, but the ancient city dwindled in popularity and only about 20% lived there. Two interesting points

22 Leading sources used to identify religious affiliation include. fo r Anglicans. churchwardens lis ts, press repo rts, registers of burials; for others, Non-Parochial Registers (P. R.O.), press reports, Lewin 's Mead Unitarian C hurch records.

23 Gazelle, 2 1 ovember 1850, p. 3. 24 Viz., The Alcxanders, Castles (R . and W . H.), Franklyns, Kings, Ricketts

(F., H., J. and R.), Sanders, Vinings (C. and J .) and Wills. 25 Viz., (fathers first) W. a nd W. D. Bushel!, probably G . a nd W. Goldncy, C.

and C. B. Hare, W. and J . B. Ha rwood , S. and T . Lucas, P. and P. Maze, J r. , W. and F. Terrell , C. a nd C . J. Vi ning.

132 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

emerge from an ana lysis of residence. F irst, it was the exception J rather than the rule for elected councillors to live in the ward they

represented. This engendered no feeling of neglect, apart from the jettisoning of W. 0 . Bigg by the Conservatives of Clifton in 1845 on the a lleged grounds of non-residence. Secondly, Clifton's con-

If centration of councillors d id not prevent discontent, mili tantly expressed in issues of the transfer of the dock and of public health, 26

because the suburb was thought to have fared badly from its incor­pora tion into Bristol in 1835. However tempted the Clifton council-lors may have been to procure for it preferentia l treatment, there is no evidence that they did so.

It might have been assumed tha t when li fe- tenure was abolished, the Council would be younger tha n the body it superseded, 27 but ra tepayers, obsessed with "economy", were wary of those without business or commercial experience, and in fact, only nine of the 162 councillors made their first appearance when under thirty years of age. Pointing to the " recent vigoro us infusion of young blood " in 1842, the Mercury flippantly claimed tha t change to "an eminently j uvenile complexion" was only being delayed to allow "several embryo legislators to fin ish their studies so that they may step straight from the school-room to the council chamber". 28 When it is noted that the average age of the councillors who were fi rst ind ucted in 1841 was 42·5 years, the Mercury's view is somewhat puzzling.

"Early- to-middle" midd le age most accurately descri bed the councillors. They were men of the world, but they were far from being decrepit or senile. At the start, the average age was for ty-nine, then successively, fifty-two in 1840, fi fty in 1845 and fifty-three in 1850. Perha ps the most nota ble trend was the decline in numbers of both the old and the young, so much so that by 1850 only two were under forty a nd three a bove seventy. Possibly this predomi­nance of men in their forties and fift ies imparted to the Council a " midd le-aged" o utlook dra ined of exuberance a nd a sense of adventure.

A work on contemporary Bristol politics published in 196929

asserts that business and socia l leaders tended to avoid participating to the expected degree in the city's government. Their counterparts in the political field a century or so earlier did not shun the Council. Bristol leaders in tha t period coveted municipal honours. Da niel remained the respected elder statesman of the Tory party and his likely heirs, Fripp, Shaw, Phippen, J. S. Ha rford, Ha berfield and Bush (a walking encyclopedia of electoral informa tion and " by far

26 fnj'ra. 166-1 75 and pp. 175-1 81. 27 Alfred Beavan, Bristol Lists, contains the ages of abou t 90° • of councillors.

These have been verified against obituary notices and the remainder obtained from parish registers of deaths, So merset House records and on-Parochial Registers (P. R.O.).

2B Mercury , 20 August 1842, p. 8. 20 R. V. Clements, Local Notables and the City Council (London. 1969).

The Structure and Politics of the Council 133

the ablest electioneer of the o ld days") were with o ne exception, councillors. Virtua lly every member of the Liberal party executive­Visger, Herapath, To thill , George Sanders, George Thomas and James Cunningham- had a period o f service on the municipal body. Councillors were inveterate nominato rs of parliamentary candidates and were a t the centre o f the maelstro m which disrupted Bristol Conserva tism for a decade after 1841.

Energies were far from exhausted by indulging in the hurly-burly of the city's po litics. Organiza tio ns of a charitable, commercial, cultural or religio us bent a lmost invariably recruited a councillor or two to swell their ranks a nd their funds. Ex officio participatio n, which conferred only a problematical degree o f influence, continued in a range of o ther local bodies. This will be examined further in the final chapter. 30

Councillors made up 75% of the J .P.s a nd 70% of the C harity ( Trustees chosen between 1835 and 185 1. C hief executive officers of the Chamber of Commerce were almost a lways councillors, eleven masters of the Merchant Venturers during the period studied were o r had been councillo rs, ha lf the councillo rs were at some time on the committee o f the Commercial Rooms,3 1 and 40% had occupied the chai r o f one of the Colston cha ritable societies. T o construct a complete picture of councillo rs' involvement in semi-public and community bodies would be who lly impracticable, but it seems that ( o nly a score did no t appear on some committee or board o f management.

Cha rles Pinney was a fflicted wi th a compulsive urge in this direc­tion . He was associated actively with the Philosophical Society, the fo undation o f the sho rt-li ved Bri sto l College, the pa terna l General Trades Association, the Statistical Society, the Asylum for the Blind , the foundation of the Athenaeum , the Society for the Moral and Religio u Improvement of Ireland and the Lord 's Day Obervance Society. Others who seemed unable to deny appeals to make their ta lents available were Bush, Joseph Cookson, C harles Fripp, James George, Tho mas Guppy, Ja mes Lean, Haberfield, Herapath , T othill , Jo hn Vining a nd Samuel Wayte. The casual o bser­ver could be forgiven for imagining that the local committee for organizing the 185 1 Great Exhibition was appointed solely from current and former councillo rs. On such diverse institutio ns as the 1

General Cemetery, the Great Western Compan y, the Canynge Society, the Property Tax Commissio ners and the Mercantile Marine Board, the presence o f a kn o t of councillors could always be guaranteed. Socially, local notables may have felt under an o bliga­tion to lend their na mes to such bodies. Tha t counci llo rs often went beyond an hono rary connectio n and eagerly participated in these

30 Infra. pp. 207-210. 3 1 Calculated from "Committees of the Bristol Commercial Rooms from its opening

29 Scptr. 18 11 " (Commercial Rooms).

134 Bristol and its Municipal Go1•ernment 1820-/851

causes suggests that they were multi-purpose leaders and opinion­makers.

No Bristol councillor during the years studied seems to have recorded for posterity any observations on his municipal career. Yet there were several who by their eccentricities enlivened both Council meetings and local life, and inspired contemporaries to record their peculiarities. William Clarke, Mayor in 1844, used to drive up Park Street in his coach after luncheon, his wooden leg stickmg out of the window.32 Richard Smith, a councillor from 1835 to 1843, and for many years chief surgeon (or more precisely, the last '"barber surgeon") at the Royal Infirmary, had the macabre hobby of writing in rhyme the lives and deaths of local malefactors executed for their crimes, and binding the pages in the skin of one of his subjects after they had been handed over for dissection. H Thomas Powell, returned for the Conservatives for fifteen years, lived in Charlotte Street, which climbed the shoulder of Brandon Hill. He believed that this modest mound was really an extinct volcano and at intervals soberly warned amused colleagues that tf tt erupted and deposited millions of tons of lava in the Floating Harbour. the Council ~ould be liable for "taking it up".H Because Harman Ytsger, a fervent radical, devoted himself ·'without stint of time or trouble" to the Liberal cause, he got entangled in many a political fracas. None was more sensational than in 1838 when the Journal foolishly implied that he had pressed on a Red Maids' girl a book of '·lascivious tendency" viz., The Monk, and then enticed her away from her family. The proprietors were taken to court and not havmg a scrap of evidence to substantiate their accusations, were obliged to pay both nominal damages and costs, and publish "an entire and ample retraction" in their columns. 35 A trusted confederate of Visger for more than a quarter of a century was William Herapath, the Radical-Liberal who was a notorious malcontent. Herapath was a philosophical chemist and earned himself nation-wide fame and "a distinguished place amongst men of science" for his expert toxicological evidence at several murder trials involving poisoning. 36 Thomas Daniel, by then in his late seventies and semi-rettred, cannot be omitted. Born before any other councillor, he commanded immense respect and deference:

He >Aas a Bristolian to the backbone, and liked the old city almost as much as he liked turtle, which is saying something, as he was a valiant trencherman, when the place boasted giants in gastron­omy amongst its leading citizens. 37

' 2 Letter to the author from Charles Clarke, 14 J unc 1964. 11 "Remmiscences by 'L' on Bristol's 1-ir~t Reformed Council". Times and M1rror.

9 Arril 1888. p. 5. -'

4 Mercury, 6 January 1844. p. !<. " Ibid .. 2 March 1839. p. 3. ' 0 "Remmiscences by 'L'", Time; and Jf~rror. 9 Apnl l!l88. p. 5. '' Ibid. 2 April 1888. p. :?..

The S1ruc1ure and Polilics of !he Council 135

But pride of place as a "character" is reserved for John Kerle Haberfield, alderman, councillor and six times Mayor between 1835 and his death in 1857. Wealth came to him quite easily through inheritance and his position as senior partner in the city's most prosperous legal firm. Formerly a Nonconformist, he embraced Anglicanism in the 1830's. As openhanded in his charitable gifts as in his refusal to accept the salary during his first mayoralty, he con­sciously sought to emulate William Canynge, the extraordinary Bristolian of the fifteenth century. He relished the limelight,3 H

affected a Frenchified mode of dress, and never declined an invita­tion to chair a public dinner. A nonpareil in many respects, Haber­field was said to have "lived all the days of his life", exuding "pleasant bonhommie and serene good nature". Once when presiding over the Bench, he was handed up, during a case, a glass of water for his verdict on its quality. Haberfield declined to pass judgment, explaining that as he had not tasted the liquid for thirty years, he was not competent to pronounce on its purity. 39

The pinnacle of hi s career was kneeling for the accolade of knighthood during his final mayoralty at the time of the 1851 Great Exhibition, the local section of which he had liberall)' supported.40

Haberfield won esteem bordering on adulation. One anonymous admirer wrote in 1839, infer alia:

And such is Haberfield- fair Bristow's boast The upright statesman, and the friendly host; The faithful magistrate, unfound to bend, The watchful councillor, the constant friend; Patron of science and the liberal arts, Whose many virtues have obtained our hearts.

Some sourly insinuated that his immense wealth had been used to purchase prominence, the mayoralty, and finally, a title. Perhaps because he really belonged to the eighteenth century, Haberfield left his imprint in many ways. Few Mayors then or since can have read their praises sung in verse:

Behold our noble Mayor, where'er Asylums, Churches, built, You see him quick with C'heques attend, And all his pockets filled. To give and help, and thus promote, Improvements great nor few, To mention just for glory's sake, Old Redcliffe Church to view And ever ready to relieve

'"Sec ibid ., 24 February 1877, p. 6. '" A. B. Freeman, Bristol Worthies and Notable Residents (Bristol : n.p., 1907). p . 41. 40 Sec Mercury , 29 March 1851. p. 8.

136 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

Wherever there is need ; Thus many loud voices proclaim He is a friend indeed .41

Since the Council had inheri ted bo th an establishment of officers J and a crushing debt, it gave immediate a ttention to the prospects

of reducing its debt by ra tiona lizing the staff. It was a Libera l con­viction that the administra tion was too infla ted a nd staffed by super­numeraries. Hence Liberal councillo rs were predisposed to wield the

I axe quite ruthlessly on the principle of the maximum output of work for the minimum reward. Appointment of a committee to enquire into every o ffice and its fees was the very first administra tive act o f the Council on I January 1836. 4 2 Radical change was foreshadowed, but never occurred because the mode of procedure-examining each office and reaching decisions witho ut enunciating a ny guid ing principles-gave a tremendous advantage to the sta tus quo. Once the realities of running a sizeable machine had been appreciated, doctrinaire ideas of radical retrenchment were scra pped . At the top level, the sta ffing structure decided on closely resembled that mai n­tained by the Corporation. The dismissal of existing officers would have involved an amount of compensation unbearable in the circum­stances. So the Council was saddled with o fficials such as Charles Anderson, Collector ofTown Dues, who left over £ 160 unaccounted for;4 3 John Hilhouse Wilcox, Registrar of the Court o f Conscience, who died owing suitors o f the Court £ I ,800, no t a penny of which was recovered;44 and the governor o f the gaol, who d uring 1838 illicitly redirected to his private plot a hundred loads of garden mould, intended fo r the institution's garden.4 5 Ano ther o fficial , C hristopher Claxton, the Quay Warden, brazenly flouted his duties. His o ffice was a sinecure, £50 of his £400 annua l salary being

'

given to a n underling, who did the work while he spent his time as managing-director of the G reat Western Steam Ship Company. A stream of complaints flowed from shipowners and merchants, but the Council was amazingly tolerant.46 When in 1844 permission was granted him to extend his association wi th the G reat Western Com­pany by six months, C laxton expressed his a pprecia tion by writing a letter to the Mirror, left unpublished, accusing councillors of being persecuto rs. T his culminated in a fo rced apology, which was barely accepted .4 7 Almost inevita bly, a committee of enquiry was finally

41 Pa rt of poem. "Two Bristol Worthies, or the Pride of Bristol", in the volume M emorials of Sir J. K. Haberjield.

42 P.C. ( I), I January 1836. p. 6. 43 City Lands and Improvement Committee Minute Book 1836- 1839, 10 June 1837,

p. 135. 44 Ga=elle, 7 September 1837, p. 4. • s P.C. (2), 14 January 1839, pp. 518-519. 46 See P.C. (4), 2 August 1843, p. 396. 4 7 Ga=ette. 4 January 1844, p. 3 and Mercury, 10 February 1844. p. 8.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 137

summoned, but Clax ton intervened by choosing in January 1847 not to seek reappointment.4 8 ::;:::.

The Council, however, did make an effort to refo rm the staffing structure. All the ma rshals, beadles, yeomen and sergeants' posts were replaced by four Mayor's officers. The post of river inspecto r of nuisances was abolished, and many salaries were reduced. To check abuses, the paying of fees instead of direct salaries was la rgely discontinued. Except for the T own Clerk, and later the Treasurer, a ll officers were appoin ted annually. Until its disbanding in 1842, the committee on sa la ries kept a close watch on the position. In 1841 the staff consisted of some thirty-four senio r officers, twenty­six subordinates and a police force totalling 222, the salary bill for which amounted to nearly £20,000.49 A few personnel such as the Quay Warden, Mayor's C haplain and the surveyors, were pa rt-time, and a few officers such as the Librarian and the prison o fficers were answerable to other authorit ies. Nine years later, although there had been no material a ugmentation in numbers, increases in salaries had raised the bill to £22,350, of which £1 1 ,550 was fo r the police and £ I 0,800 for o ther staff.

Two episodes involving the presiding officers of civil courts ended in one case in a mending legisla tion a nd in the o ther in a humilia ting climbdown.50 Such setbacks apart , the Council quite as tutely edu­cated itself in the difficult task of hand ling staff. A few ceremonial functionar ies- the swordbea rer, bellmen and chapel o fficers­remained, but by mid-century the staff was composed basically of men looking after the city properties, fin ances, law and o rder, port, s 1

improvements, markets and the inexorably-mounting paperwork. While still omnipotent in the financial field , the C hamberlain , now

styled 'Treasurer" , was largely deprived of o ther duties. With the advent o f rates he became, if anything, more indispensable, and fully merited his salary of £700, which was conditional on his providing a £4,000 surety. 52 T homas Garrard was unanimously reappointed , and with his subordinates he laboured to present the assets and liabi lities in an intelligible, explicit statement. Everyday business in the treasurer's department included matters connected with leases, rents, rate collection, accounts, tenders, transactions with o ther authorities, damage to Council property a nd general supervision of the borough fund .

Most significantly, the fi rst executive action of the Council was unanimously to confi rm Ebenezer Ludlow as Town Clerk. 53 To its

•s P.C. (5), I January 1847, p. 394. 4 9 For a complete list sec G. W. A. Bush. The Old and the New, pp. 682-684. 50 Infra, p. 160. In 1839 the Counci l wanted to reduce fees in the Court of

Requests. but because it technically breached the Act , the assessor extorted from the Council the original fees by threatening court action (Gazelle, 6 January 1839, p. 4).

" Infra, pp. 173-175. 52 P.C. (4), 20 December 1843, p. 440.

~ H P.C. ( I), I January 1836, p. 8.

138 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

consternatio n, the wily ba rrister wo uld neither accept no r decline. This unusual actio n hinged on the issue o f compensatio n fo r loss o f o ffice. Lud low had little desire to be Town Clerk, as the Quarter Sessions duties had been divorced fro m administra tive tasks, and constant a ttendance a t the Council Ho use was incompatible with his peripa te tic legal work. So he advised that the " materia lly cha nged " jo b was best left to a barrister. 54 Yet he was a lso afraid that outright refusal to ta ke the post could d isqua lify him fro m receiving compensatio n. With this in mind he shrewdly adopted a po licy o f inactio n, da ily a ttend ing the Council Ho use but refusing to do a ny duty, such as the signing o f cheques, which could be construed as accepta nce o f the o ffice.

The ha pless Council was to rn between the need to get the admini­stra tio n under way a nd the desire to avoid po tentia lly heavy com­pensatio n. To b reak the deadlock, it proposed that Ludlow resign wi thout prej ud ice to any future steps, 55 but he would no t compro­mise himself. The Council committee foresaw no easy resolution of the di lemma, and in a series of exchanges could no t persuade Ludlow to cha nge his position. Ludlow could a fford not to shift ground in a sta lemate: the Council , with pending business pi ling up, could not. Finding all o ther a lte rna tives untena ble, the Council fi nally declared the o ffice vacant o n the ground o f Lud low's unwillingness to perform its d uties. 56 After icy co rrespo ndence and the in tervention of the Lo rds o f the T reasury, Ludlow was finally awa rded a life annuity of £533 6s. 8d . He lived o n unt il 185 1, and occupied the positions o f chairma n a t the G lo ucestersh ire Q uarter Sessions and Commissio ner of Bankruptcy a t Bristo l. 57

Logically eno ugh, Surges, who had been effecti vely the admini­stra tive manager for many yea rs, was installed as Town Clerk. Together with his partner, William Diaper Brice, he was retained as legal ad viser, 5 8 a nd in lieu of more lucra tive fees, they were to be reimbursed by a fla t £2,500 per a nnum. At the same time, thei r so ns, Daniel Surges, Jr. , a nd William Brice, Jr. , became clerks to the Justices. Surges rendered invaluable service, no t o nly fi lling the role of T own C lerk with " diligence. integrity a nd ability" 59 but o ften saving the Council fro m precipitate actio n which might have ended in costly law suits. Advancing age and the death o f Brice, his life­lo ng business pa rtner , caused Burges to retire in 1849. He was showered wi th pra ise a nd pro ud ly saw his son succeed him .60 Oppo r­tunity was ta ken to a bo lish the joint o ffice of city solic ito r and to

,. See Lud low·s address to the grand jury; Ga:eue. 7 January 1836. p. 3. ss P.C. ( I), 5 February 1836, pp. 35-37. ' 6 1bid .. 10 Februa ry 1836. p. 75. " For furthe r sec G. W. A. Bush, The Old and the Neu·, pp. 388-39 1. '" P.C. ( I), 23 February 1836. p. 83. '

9 Joumal, 3 1 March 1849, p. 5. 60 P.C. (6), 29 Ma rch 1849, p. 200. When Ba rges. J r .. died in 1874 he was sue·

ceeded by Brice, Jr., who in 1880 in turn resigned to give way to Da niel Travers Burges. the o rigina l Burges· grandson.

The S tructure and Politics of the Council 139

associate Brice, Jr. , with the administration in an informal ma nner. To this informal position, as well as to the town clerk's post, was attached a salary of£ I ,000. In Burges, Sr., and G a rra rd, the Council had at the head of its sta ff two men of calibre, erudition and devotion to duty.

The fo rmal meeting of the full Council, almost always maintained at its full complement of sixty-four, remained the basic executive instrument. It was soon realized that much business, because of its technical nature o r beca use of expediency, had to be passed to committees. As a result, the standard business a t Council meetings became the receiving and confirming of repo rts, and the referral of new matters to the proper quarter. From the outset reporters were admitted to meetings,6 1 but " strangers o r ra tepayers" were stead­fas tl y excluded. 62

There was always a danger of the Council becoming a mere talking shop. At one meeting in 1849 Visger spoke on thirty-nine separate occasions. Two years previously, the Mayor had delivered a lecture about punctuality and garrulity. The Journal reported:

We fa ncied we saw a sort of wincing smile from one o r two nameless soi-disant orato rs, who have been accustomed to add sentence to sentence without ever a rriving at a po int till they had run themselves down. 63

Some semblance of order a nd progress was assured by the constant presence of the Town C lerk (and from 1837, the Treasurer). Much la titude was enjoyed by the fo rmer , who on his own initiative often intervened in debates to give some guidance.

Meetings were held qua rterly, by adjournment if it was impossible to complete the agenda in a single session, and by specia l requisi­tion. Di sposal of the backlog of work meant a full calenda r­twenty-six meetings in 1836 and twenty-fo ur in 1837- but the average over the sixteen years was fractionally in excess of one per month. In 1847 without demur, the day of meeting was altered because of its inconvenience to a mid-week newspaper. 64 Meet ings were not always conducted decently a nd in order. Three scheduled gatherings never started for want of a quorum. In 1842 at one meeting half the Conservatives gave a boorish display by picking up their hats and departing after the award of a lectureship, heed less of the Mayor's entreaties that the agenda contained o ther items. 65 Council­lors were apt to spea k in an irregular and conversationa l manner, thus causing problems for reporters. Even the most stento rian of

61 P.C. ( 1 ), 31 December 1835, p. 2. 62 Letter from D. Burges to T . L. Willia ms, 27 J uly 1846: Town C lerk 's Letter

Book 1841-1 847, p. 448. 63 Joumal, 27 November 1847, p. 8. See also Brisrol Times, 17 February 1849, p. 5. 64 Journal, 13 November 1847, p. 6. 65 Ga=eu e, 3 November 1842, p. 3.

r

140 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

voices would have been drowned on the occasion in 1837 when the bells of adjacent Christchurch peeled solidly for an hour during a meeting. A zealous Conservative councillor had ordered their ringing afte r a stirring mayoral contest had terminated in his party's favour.66

Good temper did not a lways prevail. Especially in the initial, turbulent years with their threats of walk-outs, there was sometimes rowdy and boisterous behaviour. In 1844 Visger and John Shaw clashed with such ferocity that a breach of the peace was feared, and the two were summoned before a magistrate and bound over on sureties to talling £400 each. 67 Two years later a heated debate over the supply of water became very disorderly. A large group of councillors had pecuniary interests in, or loyalty to, the contending parties, the Bristol Waterworks Company and the Merchant Ven­turers. 6 8 So powerless was the Mayor to control proceedings that the construction of an adjoining duelling chamber was jocularly urged by the Mercury, which described the atmosphere thus:

A knot of schoolboys quarrelling over a disputed cricket case may be taken as decorum personified in comparison with the fierce and fervid disputes of belligerent town-councillors. 6 9

With a mixture of personal and party bickering and loquaci ty,

\

meetings lasting for upwards of five or even six hours were commonplace.

The councillors were admirably resilient in the face of a multi­plicity of meetings. On average each meeting was attended by 72· 1% of the members, and attendance ranged from 84% in 1836 to 62% in 1842. The very first meeting, a t which there was 100% attendance, could not thereafter be emulated, but over the period no grave decline occurred . In only four out of 229 individual meetings did attendance slip below 50%. When the Mayor or aldermen were to be chosen , an average of 85% took their seats. Again, on average

I each councillor attended 73% of all possible meetings. Only 15% missed more meetings than they attended. Thomas Powell , the man who feared Brandon Hill was a volcano, built up an enviable record, attending 197 meetings out of 207, as did Hera path, who was present for 173 meetings out of 188, but a poor example was set by ex-members of the Corporation, who averaged only 62%. There was a marked difference in the attendance records of the two parties. Backed by a resounding majority, the Conservatives felt under less compulsion to attend. As a result, their record (68%) could not match that of the Liberals (75%), who were spurred on by their

00 lbid .. 16 November 1837, p. 4. o ; Mercury , 13 January 1844. p. 8. 08 /njra. pp. 175-176. • • Mercury , 4 May 1846. p. 8.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 141

numerical inferio rity and who were in any case more imbued wi th ""good councillo r" concepts. 7 0

Supporting the Council's superstructure was a series of commit­tees, of which the most significant were those existing o n a permanent basis. These standing committees dealt with the police (as required by statute), finance, the port, by-laws, and, at the end of the period, public health. Special purpose o r ad hoc committees were convened for such topics as legal questions, special issues concerning the po rt, officers, and the civil courts, as well as a wide range of miscellaneous matters. From the o utset the Council resorted to the use of com­mittees almost without reservatio n: indeed , inside the first two mo nths sixteen committees were set up to consider subjects as diverse as the British Association conference, finance, street lighting, and the removal of Jewish civil disabilities. In more normal times, an ( average of fifteen committees were functionin g a t any o ne time. Between them they presented a total o f some ten reports to each Council meeting. Every decision by a committee was subject to formal ratification by the full Council, but no general directive about committee procedure was issued until four years had elapsed. 7 1

Towards the end of the period, the improvements and docks committees, which instiga ted massive projects of work, became effec­tively decision-makers in their own right.

It was not easy to fill a ll the committee p laces since a strength of fourteen to twenty was regarded as the o ptimum size for standing committees and eight to ten for those set up for particular purposes. Councillo rs who had a conscientious attitude towards committee duties sho uldered a considerable load. Weekly meetings were the rule for the watch committee, and between 1841 and 1845 the im­provement committee matched this freque ncy . Less significant com­mitees, however, met less regularly.

Spread of membership of committees was neither even nor equit ­able, but it was sensible. Doctors Thomas Green and William Kay, as well as Herapath, the analytical chemist, were always chosen for the drainage and public health committees, and Visger was usua lly on the port cha rges and docks committees. On average, each council­lor served on 19% of committees convened during his period in office, but every key co mmittee contained a high ra tio of nea r­perma nent influential members. A few councillo rs seemingly revelled in such work but o n the o ther hand each year about 20° o avoided or evaded serving on committees. Extreme examples o f workers and drones were Fripp (9 1 o ut of 160 possible committees), Haberfield ( 135 o ut of 234), Willia m Bushell (I o ut of 145) and Frederick Green (0 out of 109). In 1848 an attempt was made to rectify the discrepancies by a resolution limiting to four the number o f com­mittees a counci llo r could be required to sit on. 72 Yet three years

7° For further see G. W. A . Bush. The Old and 1he Nell', pp. 361 -363. 7 1 P.C. (3), 9 November 1839. p. 169. 72 P.C. (6), I January 1848, p. 26.

142 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

later the Gazette was complaining of " the almost entire monopoly of a ll the influential posts by about a dozen gentlemen". 73

Originally, the Conservatives acceded to their opponent 's demand for a "perfect eq uality in representation", although it was perhaps a case of lightening the burden of work while retaining power. 7 4

However, they insisted on ma king all nominations, and for several o f the early years this resulted in shabby treatment of Herapath, who seemed the object o f a persona l vendetta. Self-confessed lack of interest in a committee's work was not a disqualification. In practice, though not form ally, the principle of ward representation on the watch and finance committees was tacitly adopted. Atten­da nce stayed commendabl y high. Between 1837 a nd 185 1 the finance committee meetings a ttracted a 50% attendance, a figure only bettered by the docks committee, in which throughout 188 meetings in three years and four months each member attended over 60% of the time. At less important com mittees, attendances were not noticeably worse.

To some extent there was a risk of the Council becoming sub­servient to the committees. It was an advantage for decisions to be made in committee ra ther than in large and wordy full meetings, but there were undesirable consequences. It tended to leave the Council with nothing but a formal sanctioning of a fait accompli. Reports which were the end-product of technical , involved discussion and study could hardly be cha llenged with a utho rity by a non­committee member. Therefore reports were often confirmed unani­mously without any informed debate. 7 5 When this trend coi ncided

( with the domination of committees by one-third of the Council , the " unavoida ble result" in the Gazette's eyes was that

the majority of the Council ... though many of them have been years in it are utterly ignorant of the a ffairs of the body, and the effect has been to vest a ll rea l power in the committees, which be it borne in mind, meet and resolve in secret. 76

Nevertheless, if committees had been insufficient o r ineffective, the Council would have found it very difficult to cope with the volume of business.

By packing the a ldermen the Conservatives had brought their majority in the ina ugural Council to fifteen. This ensured undis­turbed control for the rest of the century. Borne along by the currents of reform, the Liberals in 1836 actually won a majorit y of elected counci llo rs, but this peak (28 members out of 64), alt hough main­ta ined fo r several years, was never again approached. In 1839 their

'·'Gazette. 16 October 185 1, p. 5. 7 4 See editorial in the Mercury. 8 December 1838. p . I. 75 See ibid .. 28 J uly 1838. p. 3. ' 6 Go:ette. 16 October 1851. p. 5.

The Smtcture and Politics of the Council 143

fortunes slumped in conj unction with those of the Melbourne administration. Leading local Tories concluded that their insistence that it was incompatible to be simultaneously a councillor and a charity trustee77 had contributed to a 30% reduction in the Liberal strength. Worse followed. In 1840 the Conservatives annexed a further four seats and followed this the next yea r by entirely extin­guishing Li beral aldermen. As they already enjoyed a majority of thirty-four, this was a needless and ungracious act, for their oppo­nents were struggling to maintain double figures. Except for special circumstances in 1844 and 1851, no further Liberals were selected as aldermen until 187 1. The early forties marked the Liberals' nadi r. After a painful, slow recovery, by 185 1 they had nearly whittled away the disparity in elected councillors (22 to 26). Needless to say, the exclusively Conservative aldermanic section left the Liberals hopelessly outnumbered in numerical strength , as the following table indicates:

POLIT ICA L COM PLEXIO OF T H E COUNCI L 1836-1851""

Comerv(lfives Liberals Conservative Year of C/lrs. Aldn. Total Neu· C/lrs. Akin. Total Neu· majority

mem. n1en1.

1836 26 13 39 21 21 3 24 22 15 1837 22 13 35 2 25 3 28 4 7 1838 23 D 36 3 25 3 28 5 8 1839 24 14 38 7 24 2 26 2 12 1840 31 14 45 6 17 2 19 0 26 1841 35 14 49 4 13 2 15 0 34 1842 35 16 51 7 13 0 13 I 38 1843 33 16 49 7 15 0 15 2 34 1844 30 16 46 3 18 0 18 I 28 1845 30 15 45 5 18 I 19 I 26 1846 30 15 45 4 18 I 19 2 26 1847 29 16 45 4 19 0 19 I 26 1848 29 16 45 19 0 19 3 26 1849 27 16 43 21 0 21 3 22 1850 28 16 44 4 20 0 20 5 24 1851 26 16 42 5 22 0 22 3 20

In municipal elections the participants were a highly select group. ' By 1850 the electorate of 7, 131, or less than one in eight adult males, represented a 70% increase on the original burgess roll. With respect to proportion of electorate to population, Bristol occupied a middling rank , above Manchester and Liverpool, but well below Leeds and Sheffield . The inequitable wa rd division became ever more glaring. By 185 1, St. Phil ip and Jacob, with nearly three times the voters of St. Augustine, still only returned ha lf its number of

11 Sec Journal, 2 ovember 1839, p. 3. 78 Calculated from voting at parliamentary elections and from party divisions in

the Council.

r:

144 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

councillo rs. 79 Analysis by wards shows tha t in four wards representa­tion was fa irly evenly shared ; in ano ther three- St. Augustine, St. Pa ul and St. James-one party always won; and in three-Clifton, St. Michael and District- one pa rty heavily predomina ted . Thus, over the whole period the rela tive strengths averaged 28· 75 Con­serva tives and 19· 25 Libera ls. Unopposed elections beca me exceed­ingly common, and between 1841 a nd 1850 never less than seven of the ten wards were uncontested. St. Paul and St. August ine were monopolized by one party and the dominant group d id no t have to face competition in fourteen of the sixteen elections. In general, wards witnessed a genuine contest only once in every four elections.

The genera l impression of these fifteen years is one of intense initial enthusiasm sustained fo r a time, the onset o f a pathy and a decline in pa rty fervour, then a disinclina tion to contest un­promising wards, and, fi nally, an unwritten compact a mong the pa rties to carve up the wards and not poach on the prest>rves of others. As time went on, it o ften happened that no t a single ward was fully contested on a pa rtisan basis. Vo ting was st ill no t secret­signed ba llo t papers having replaced the open declaration- but most disa ppointingly, only three po ll books (fo r the Bristo l wa rd 1835, 1836 and 1840) are exta nt. The books provide a valua ble insight. O verwhelmingly, those who voted selected the full number of candi­da tes to which they were entitled. In 1836 a nd 1840 a bout 12·5% split their choice between the parties, but in 1840 a majo rity of Tory electo rs (48·5% against 39%) ena bled their three cand idates to be successfu l. There was an increase in the proport ion of abstainers- from 20% in 1836 to 30% in 1840, defections seemingly being suffered equally by bo th sides.

While the situation fluctuated up to 1840, bo th parties strove to gain the ascendancy. Election meetings fl ourished, the Conservative Opera ti ves Associa tion was revived,80 the party press exhorted unity, remonstra ted against laxi ty, a nd abused the o ther side, and coloured, often malicious broadsheets appea red in large numbers. 1836 was the last occasion when the Liberals accused thei r oppo­nents of being supporters o f the o ld, a bhorrent system. In 1837 Li bera l disappointment was expressed by accusations about exclu­sive dealing, a bout the spending of £2,000 to " buy" the C lifton ward, and about getting a mass of voters intoxicated. The Conserva tives' retort was to ask questions abo ut the underhand electo ral trickery a t the C lifton by-election and the luring of hostile voters out o f town by fo rged letters. 8 1 T he election of 1838 was so intense that one paper likened the excitement to tha t generated by pa rlia mentary

1 0 This a noma ly went unrcct ifi ed until 1880, when three Conservative wards were each deprived of three councillo rs.

80 Journal, 19 November 1836. p. 3. 81 See Gazelle, 26 October 1837, p. 3; Mercury, 4 November 1837. p. 3; Journal.

4 ovember 1837. p. 3.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 145

contests. 82 For the Libera ls, it was a make-or-break crisis, as eight aldermen, seven of them Conservative, were due to retire. Cunning Liberals apparently offered Conservative voters in Bedminster free trips to distant relat ives on polling day. It was rumoured that in Clifton intimidation had frightened off over I 00 of the 268 voters pledged to a Liberal candidate. But the most delightful anecdote was of the tobacco manufacturer W. D. Wills losing in Redcliffe because of a dasta rdly last-minute no tice being circula ted among the ward 's numerous publicans that he was an unrepentant tee­totaller. 83 Bands paraded, vehicles were mobilized, and such was the fervour that " neighbo ur was set against neighbo ur" . For all the fuss and fury, the result was minimal: only a single seat cha nged hands and the ela ted "victo rs" had a special song, "Conservati ve Re-Action", composed for rendering a t party dinners.

Bot h sides promptly realized that Peel's dictum about elections being fought and won in the registration courts was equally valid in the municipal sphere. Until 1840 the registra t ion (or revision) court was annua lly the scene of a pugnacious clash, where the eligibility of some 15% of the electora te was put on trial. In 1836 213 out of the 294 to whom the Liberals objected and 213 out o f the 343 to whom the T ories objected were expunged from the ro ll. In augmenting the ro ll , the Liberals did better- 142 accepted as against the Conservatives' 30. Fripp, as chairman, was required to judge whether he himself was eligible for the burgess list. He decided in the affi rmative. 8 4 Considerable political capital and many tenden­tious conclusions were drawn from the court 's findings. Nerves were frayed in 1838 by the ''highly partial " stance the Mayor, Haberfield, adopted. In what the Li beral assessor decried as "a mockery and denial of justice", Haberfield closed proceedings when 1,670 of the 2,600 cases still awaited adjudication. The enraged Liberals asserted that this bias cost them a number of sea ts.

However, the tumult a nd the shouting rapidly died. The pattern of ward representation stabilized , a nd the 1839 a nd 1840 elections, disastrous for the Liberals throughout England, were the last in which there was any rea l fire. Indicative of the passions a roused were the Journars venomous insinuations in 1839 tha t the Cha rity Trustees were about to inflic t upon the ra tepayers a £ 12,000 annual tax and that the languishing Bedminster Liberals had hired bludgeon men to abduct every unfavourable voter within reach .85

Although a deal to "save" C. B. Fripp, a n invaluable Liberal coun­cillo r, came to no thing in 1840, the tacit sharing of representation was soon an established practice. The Mirror reflected the growing disillusion with elections, "these annual visitations of the city plague":

82 Mirror, 3 November 1838, p. 3. AJ Mercury, 3 November 1838, p. 3. s• Journal, 15 October 1836, p. 3. 8 ' Ibid .. 19 October and 2 ovember 1839. p. 3.

146 Briswl and its Municipal Gol'emmelll 1820-1851

lt 1s a happy circumstance for the peace and welfare of the city that in the different wards 1l can now be antic1pated with con­siderable accuracy what will be the result of a municipal election, and that where a contest is hopeless there~~ a disposition to avoid expense, agitation and strife. K<>

Even by 1841 elections were passmg off with '"more than usual tranquillity". To some extent apathy was fostered by a series of ruptures within the Conservative ranks over national issues. In 1848 there was "a total absence of all excitement"; in 1849 "a dull, dead, enervating calm ... settled on [the] city". Discreet inter-party bar­gaining to avoid elections was deprecated by the Ga::.ette on the ground that it deprived the electors of their franchise, particularly when "the official party organization" was m no way representative of the electors. An opposite view was expressed by the Journal, which thought that there was an 1mproved tone m political life and a decrease in acrimonious attacks and personal abuse. M' There were, it is true. occasional factional feuds. and mterest could be aroused by eccentric candidates such a-. James Cox. who was bound over to keep the peace after calling a cand1date m another ward a "little, dirty. canting, hypocntical wretch". Three mdependent Con erva­tives tned to win Chfton m 1843 by announcmg that official support had been withdrawn and enclosmg the '"commumque" in mourning envelopes sealed with black wax. In 1850 m Liberal St. James it was asserted that "the eyes of the British Isles arc on this election". In th1s ward the expulsion of dissentients by the Methodist conference had become an issue. However, party contests as such were very rare: in only two out of seventy-two ward elections between 1845 and 1851 was there a major confrontation between the parties. The electorate did not seem to mind . The position could easily have been changed by the mtervention of unoffictal or independent candi­dates, but virtually none came forward.

Voting in the Council 1s the most obvious means of determinmg party affiliation, but helpful confirmauon can be found in parliamen­tary poll books.sH In 1835 Conservauve councillors-elect voted almost to a man for Sir R1chard Vyvyan and Philip J. Miles and the Liberals for James Baillie and S1r John Hobhouse. Suceeedmg elections showed that the former compact about shanng M.P.s was in abeyance and that the electors no longer split their votes between the two parties. However. because of a party schism in 1847 only 25" .. of Conservative councillors supported both party nominations. Only some I 0" o of councillors failed to vote, possibly because of the open nature of the ballot.

Humiliation in 1835 taught the Liberals that they could not hope

"'' H 1rror. 17 Septem her I !!42. p 5 •• Ga:elle. 25 October 1849. p. 8. Joumal. :! Ntl\cmhcr I 850. p. !!. • ror result~ or parharnentar} election' ami an analyst>, of councillor:.· \Olcs

thcrcat -.cc G. \\ . A Bu-.h. /he Old and 1111· \eu app. 19. pp 695-696.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 147

to gain two parliamen tary seats, and they pooled resources to secure the return of o ne Liberal. Their cho ice, Fitzhardinge Berkeley, was a leader of the secret ballo t movement o n the rad ical wing o f the party, but his fa mily associa tions a nd moderatio n commended him to a ll secto rs. Berkeley urged repeal o f the Corn Laws, p roclaimed himself a d iscip le of Cobden and deno unced as verb iage the Con­serva tives' ostenta tio us boast of attachment to the consti tutio n in Church and sta te. The Conservatives, misled by the electio n result of 1835, at fi rst sought to consolida te their mo nopo ly o f representa­tion. Fripp stood three times, twice when an alderman, but fa iled to gain a seat. " Reform to improve but no t to destroy" did no t, apparently, appea l to a ll the To ry voters. After 1841 , when Fripp, who campaigned prima rily o n his municipal record , appealed to the electors marginally but crucia lly less th¥1fhili p W. Miles with his policy of protectio nism, a lmost to tal rup ture occurred. Fripp's inte r­vention in 1847 o n a pla tfo rm of Peelite free t rade resulted in Berkeley head ing the poll. The Conserva tive resources were weak­ened by squabbling, a nd they surrendered their remai ning eat in 1852. They were unable to regain it until a consti tuency revisio n in 1885.

As far as deba tes in the Council were concerned , the pious hope tha t party po li t ics wo uld be fo rgotten a nd tha t a ll would be "sincerely bent o nly to vote for what is right" was not ful fi lled. As one contempo rary put it :

Not so however here, As straightway doth appear, For politics dire Set the council on fire, And discord reigns in a ll her ho rrid glo ry; While some with clenched fists Talk o f d rawing o ut " lists", Whig, Radical, Conservative, and To ry.

Were a hive of drone bees, O r the mites in a cheese, To d iscuss their respective affai rs; They sca rcely could pra te A t a much greater ra te O r give themselves lo ft ier a irs. 89

Fro m the beginning, Council meetings became, if no t qu ite a po litical cockpit , a t least an assembly where party fray was mutually wel­comed . The Libera ls in stinctively banded together, and in so do ing o nly heightened the impression of two irreconcila ble gro ups who

•• Extract from .. A Scene in the Town Council No. 1 .. 131 December 1835]; Mirror, 5 March 1836. p. 4.

148 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

desired nothing more than a war of attri tion. The Conservative bloc was allegedly in receipt of voting orders for all questions except economy.90

During 1836 party strife remained at a high pitch. After petty bickering over whether " party feeling" prevailed in debates the dis­united Council in February 1836 agreed to nominate twelve from each party, 75% of them councillors, for the Commi ssion of the Peace. 9 1 One Conservative proposed an exclusively Conservative Bench, and then blandly denied any party motivation. Half the Conservatives' list, including the venerable Daniel, was summarily rejected by Lord John Russell , the Home Secretary, and the incensed Council majority, overriding Liberal protests, asked for the reasons, but in vain . In the House of Commons Vyvyan charged Russell with having " corrupt motives", and this " manly, independent and bold course"92 induced those who controlled the Council to pass a vote of thanks, upon which all but two of the Liberals walked out.93 A round of addresses, meetings and broadsheets was quite useless, as the decision could scarcely have been revoked without a n admission of partisan motives. In any case, selection of Justices of the Peace was the Crown's prerogative and those in neighbouring counties were Conservatives "to a man". All thi s created an

1 atmosphere of " party first , the city second", but the Liberals saw . it as retaliation for the treatment they had received over the

aldermen . By the Act of 1835 the former corporations ceased to be charity

trustees on I August 1836, and the Act made provision for the receipt of petitions concerning their replacement. Bristol Liberals, long nursing a grievance about charitable awards being made for political reasons, were angered to learn that of the last forty-five recipients of the Peloquin gift for poor lying-in women, thirty-five had Con­servative spouses and only three Liberal. They hoped to gain contro l over what Parkes had called "this great political annual fund", and two Liberal councillors sponsored a petition of transfer. Although the Council enjoyed no statutory prerogative in the matter, the parties called a temporary truce and submitted two balanced lists,94

which included a large number of councillors. However, by insisting on an odd number of trustees, the Court of Chancery unwittingly re­opened old wounds. After a heated debate about which party should have the majority on the charity board, the Conservatives resolved that the Council take no further part in the affair. The Liberals then secured for themselves eighteen of the twenty-one places, much to their opponents' chagrin . When vacancies on the Board were filled

90 Gazelle, I 0 February 1836, p. 2. 91 P.C. (I), 15 February 1836, p. 56. 92 Lelter from W. Fripp, 4 April 1836; Vyvyan Papers. 93 Ga:eue, 2 1 April 1836, p. I. The six Conserva tives deleted from the list , includ­

ing Daniel , were a ll appointed to the Bench in 1841 by the Peel Ministry. 94 P.C. ( I). 6 September 1836. p. 228.

The Structure and Politics of the Council 149

in 185 1, there was almost a re-enactment o f the earlier episode, but the Conservative Council, heeding the lesson of 1836, negotia ted until a bala nced , compro mise list was agreed.95

Diehards o n both sides certainly wanted to treat municipal affairs within a party context, regardless of the fact that when political fortunes altered, there was likely to be retribution. However , it must not be imagined tha t every councillor in the period adhered firmly to his party in all circumstances. There was a sma ll group of " no­party" dissenters o f different kinds, among them Pinney, C hristopher Geo rge, Henry Ricketts, James Wood, Michael Cast le, Edward Harley and Jo hn Lunell,9 6 but in no sense did they constitute a third bloc in the Council. One contemporary o bserver believed that the only guarantee o f tranquillity was an extreme and p ro lo nged swing of the political pendulum, a nd he predicted that the aggres­siveness of the Liberals would gradually fade in the face of an unbeatable co mbination o f wealth a nd influence. 9 7 In fact , this is what largely ha ppened , for as long as they thought tha t they had a chance o f capturing contro l o f the Council , the Liberals sough t to make party capital. After 1841 , however, they adjusted to their position as a semi-permanent minority, and adoptee! a po licy of

1 co-opera tion. In re turn the Conservatives, mindful of their assured primacy, permitted the Liberals a disproportionately-high quota of committee places. '

The needs of party, then, played a less important part, but they were never entirely disregarded . Po litics prevailed in the choice o f Mayor a nd aldermen, no mination to committees, the selection of \ paid officia ls and certain non-doctrinal religious matters. W. H. Gore Langto n, the first Liberal Mayor, was elected only after promising to fo rgo a ll party ac tivi ty,98 a conditio n never imposed o n " the endless string" of Conservative Mayors. The o nly Li beral a lder­man chosen between 1838 and 185 1, Jacob Ricketts, a re la ti ve no nentity, was a lleged to have been selected so that by his vote he could assist the ·· ruling clique's" devio us scheme to award the civic printing contract to the Bristol Times. 99 Herapath a nd Visger were both ignored when committees were chosen, but generally selectio ns were impart ial. In fact, some Conserva tive dock d irecto rs were dro pped in 1842, prompting the Mercury to a pplaud the depa rture of

violent parti sans, whose o nly merit consists in lo ud pro fessions of principles which, it is scarce uncharitable to suppose, they lack the capacity to comprehend. 1 00

9' Sec G. W. A. Bush. The Old and the Neu·, fn. 2. p. 563.

9 6 Sec Mermry. 15 October 1836, p. 3. 9 1 '"A No Party Man '", The Bristol Municipal Annual for t838: A utter. Amusing

and Instructional to Tom Leveller from his cousin, Jack Candour (Bristol: n.p .. 1837). p. 4.

08 Mercury. 22 November 185 1. p. 3. 9 9 Mirror. 18 January 185 1, p. 4. 1 oo Mercury, 8 January 1842. p. 8.

150 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

Political patronage was still used in the appointment of officials. An unseemly fracas occurred in 1839, when the Conservatives chose as assessor of the Court of Requests, A. Palmer, their counsel at the sessions of the notorious 1838 revision court. He was preferred to J . G. Smith, son of the previous occupant, who had been dis­charging the duties in an acting capacity.' 0 1 There was double the normal attendance when the finance committee a nnually appointed the resident tradesmen. According to an uncontradicted article, 102

by 185 1 nearly all officers were, by design or coincidence, Con-/ servative. When other qualifications were not too disparate, Liberal t applicants were at a distinct disadvantage.

Any demonstration of attachmen t to the Established C hurch in the spending of Council funds was now statutorily forbidden, and Liberals were on guard fo r any attempt to use the Council as a vehicle for religious bias. Only after some three years' scrutiny of ancient records was a way found to ma ke the upkeep of the Mayor's Chapel legally defrayable from the borough fund. 103 Even innocuous declarations of loyalty on royal occasions were exa mined for " offen­sive" references. Contrasting politico-religious behaviour was seen in attitudes to church building. In 1841 , a group of Independents at Hinton , one of the manors belonging to the Council, wanted to lease a plot of land fo r a schoolroom which could occasionally be used for church services. For at least a decade they had worshipped in a kitchen. A remonstrance from the Anglican vica r about the evils of schism persuaded the Council to accept the most irrelevant arguments and reverse by twenty-nine votes to twelve the finance committee 's favourable report. ' 0 4 Three times the applica tion was resubmitted in vain , although it was claimed that land had been leased elsewhere to Jews and Dissenters. A handful of Conserva ti ves, asha med of this " unexa mpled shabbiness" , switched votes or abstained. The Mercury wrote tartly that " in harassing and incom­moding a few humble individuals", the councillors, in their zeal for the Church, were "conducting themselves like uncivilized heathen" .1 0 5 In all essentials the Ropewalk church case was similar to Hinton. T o rectify the absence of any Anglican church there, a petition to be a llowed to buy land was presented to the Counci l. The piece in question had a market value of £500, but the Council knocked £350 off the price. Ra ther rashly, Treasury sanction for the alienation had not been obtained, and the Council had to double the price and convince a sceptical Treasury that there would be an increased yield from the ra tes. ' 06 For religious reasons, the Council had blatantly adopted a double standard.

10 1 P.C. (2), 6 February 1839, p. 522. 102 Gazelle, 6 November 185 I. p. 5. 103 P .C. (3), 22 March 1841 , p . 501. 10 4 Ibid .. p. 502. Ios Mercury. 4 February 1843, p. 8. 1 0~ P.C. (6), 13 February 1849, pp. 171 - 173.

The S tructure and Politics of the Council 151

For the most part, the Council declined to intervene in na tional issues: nor did the Conservatives mo bilize their resources to pro mo te their party's interests. Even over the Public Health Bill of 1848, a measure intimately affecting Bristol , no stand was ta ken. Decla ra­tions about Jewish civil disabilities and the Papa l Bull of 1850 were endo rsed by both sides. The Council would not fo rwa rd a pet ition against the loathed window tax in 185 1 o n the grounds that the Council chamber was no t a proper place to deba te such business. ' 0 7

Bristol was no t unique in tha t the do mina nt party a rrogated to itself many o f the spo ils o f office. Swansea escaped party political strife, but in Leicester no Conservative mayor was chosen until 1877. Having swept the boards in 1835, the Liberals in Birmingham brazenly filled the ranks of o fficials with po litical friends. The spo ils system was rampa nt in Leeds, where the chamber was dubbed the loca l Ho use of Commons. Like Southampton 's sma ll phalanx of radicals, the Bristol Libera ls were never a n entire ly spent fo rce. T heir influence was greater than mere numbers would suggest, and there was a broad consensus that the time fo r using the Council fo r political purposes was past. Po litical decisions on municipal matters were few, rarely if ever wrecking any deserving scheme; and there were no political decisions a imed at directly boosting the Conserva­tive pa rty.

1 0 ' Ibid ., 11 Februar) 185 1. p. 441.

CHAPTER NINE

THE FU CT IO SAND ACTIVITIES OF THE COU C IL

The Municipal Corporation s Act, which comprised only 143 clauses, did no t give detailed directions about the management of boroughs. The new Council was required ( I) to esta blish and supervise a police force; (2) to continue the borough courts as before; (3) for the time being to act for the charities formerly admin istered by the Cor­poration; (4) to create a borough fund and from it to defray certain costs; 1 (5) to sell advowsons and invest the proceeds in certain charities. In addition, the Council was given a number of permissive powers. Within broad limits, it was arbiter of its own future.

The most important power conferred by the Act was the right to levy a borough rate. Almost as significant was the right to pass by-laws for the good government of the borough, although these might be disallowed by the Government within a specified period. 2

Nuisances not a lready dealt wi th by a local Act could be suppressed . In any part of the borough not covered by a local Act the Council could provide street lighting. Improvement Commissioners could volunta rily tra nsfer their powers to the municipa l body but, as will be seen in a later section the Bristol Board strenuously resisted its abolition .3 In the judicial sphere, petitions could be presented to the Government for the establishment of a Commission of the Peace o r Quarter Sessions.

Later statu tes added piecemeal to the functions of the Counci l. The 1836 Act ordered councils to undertake a ll such duties hitherto under local Acts falling to the justices or corporations, which in Bristol's case meant merel y the fo rmal levyi ng of ra tes and the nomina ting of several ad hoc bodies.4 Authority to bui ld or renovate (but not supervise) gaols was vested in the Council by the general legislation of 1837.5 After 1850 all schedu led bridges were muni­cipally managed and maintained.

As time passed , the functions of the Council were gradually cir­cumscribed. Councils ceased to be ex officio trustees of charities,

1 M.C. Act 1835. cl. XC II. Viz .. salaries. debts inherited . election costs, gaols upkeep, judicial expenses, police, municipal buildings, expenses of putting Act into operation.

2 1bid., cl . XC. 3 Infra, pp. 178-1 80. 4 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. lOS (The Municipal Corporations (Justices) Act. 1836). cl. VII I. ' 7 Will. IV & I Vie .. c.78. cl. XXV II.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 153

and corporate magistrates ceased to exist a fter I May 1836. Removal in 1837 of the right to supervise gaols produced in Bristol an irksome division of responsibility. Councils could no longer a ppoint to ecclesiastical livings, nor were they to tally free to dispose of their assets as they pleased . But the most stringent curb on thei r activities came to be the pri nciple of ultra vires, which took root in the 1840' s. Simply stated, it meant that the only allowable functions were those specifically sanctioned by legisla tion or by the G overnment. All o thers were ipso fac to illegal. 6 In addition, they were not given carte blanche to rule their boroughs without interference. Reports had to be made on po lice and finance, and any expenditure could be challenged in the courts. Councils which wanted powers beyond those genera lly conferred had to have recourse to special Acts, a costly and to rtuous business.

Before the Bristol Council could work effect ively, it had to set its own house in order. Its finances were precarious. Interest pay­ments ate up 15% of income, a nd a ltho ugh capita l asse ts fa r exceeded liabilities, income was thousands in a rrears of expenditure. If insolvency was to be avoided, there was no alterna ti ve but the imposition of rigorous economy. In July 1836 po lice sala ries a nd tradesmen's accounts exceeded the funds availa ble a nd a sizea ble overdra ft was contracted. 7

To ascertain exactly where it stood, the Council quickly appointed fin ance and cit y la nd s a nd improvement committees. Gloomy reports confirmed that there were debts of over £ 110,000, and some credito rs were becoming restless fo r payment. It tra nspired that Thomas Garra rd, Cha mberlain of the defunct Corporation, had in its final days contributed £6,657 of his persona l cash to succo ur it. 8

After August 1836 a further ominous th reat existed . There was fear that very large claims might be made against the Council by the Municipa l Charity Trustees, who began to compile a bala nce sheet of endowments and of the interest owing on them from the Council. In addit ion, the residue of the rio t compensation, being redeemed by a £ 10,000 annua l ra te, had also to be ta ken into account.

Severa l policies were adopted to deal with these lia bilit ies. In spite of oppositi on from districts recently brought under its jurisdiction, the Council obtained a special Act which allowed it to discha rge the £35,000 outsta nding on riot compensation by selling estates a nd lands. 9 Other assets were capita lized. The twelve advowsons which the 1835 Act compelled the Council to sell brought in £26,648. 10

By the end of 1838 sale of fee farm leases, la nd and premises had brought in nea rly £34,000, including £ 16,420 fo r the two Almonds­bury esta tes a nd £ 12,000 fo r nineteen acres at Temple Meads. Having

• See H. J . Laski, et al., A Cemury of Municipal Progress, pp. 41 8-422. ' P.C. ( I), 8 Ju ly 1836, p. 172. 8 Report of finance committee; ibid., 9 November 1836, p. 257. 0 lbid .. 15 February 1836. pp. 57-60. '0 Report of advowson committee; P.C. (2), 20 May 1837, p. 67.

154 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

thus pa id the compensation due for the damage in the Rio ts a nd satisfied a few bondholders, the Council next concentra ted on the debts inherited from its predecessor. It disposed of its country estates. Stockland went to Thomas Daniel 's son for £36,368, Gaunts Earth­colt for £20,866 and N orthweston fo r £16,433. The Exchequer ex­pressed some reservations about the prices obta ined , but eventually sanctioned the sale. t t

No saving, however petty, was ignored . One ta rget was " the useless splendour and frippery" beloved by the Corporation. The hoard of 520 dozen bo ttles of wine was auctioned, and the "choicest port" , "'capital sherry", a nd "'Old East India Madiera" were sna pped up fo r £I ,500. Furniture, glass, china and most of the plate was ruth­lessly sold. Just as they started to a pprecia te, the thousand G reat Western Railway shares were converted into currency, and a future councillo r purchased the Mayor's house, already destitute of furni­ture, fo r £2,200. t 2

Effective income could be raised by cutting expenditure, so all bonds issued by the o ld Corporation bearing the highest rate of interest (7%) were swiftly redeemed. On arriving for the Quarter Sessions, the Recorder was ushered into a music dealer's dwelling instead of into the luxurio us Mansion House, but entertaining the Lord Chief Justice in the "customary manner" could no t be avoided. Requests for donations were declined, somewhat brusquely.

Estimates and contracts were required fo r all work valued a bove £20, a nd further savings were effected in the purchase of articles and equipment. t 3 Salaries were drastically pruned- one report em­bodied recommendations designed to save £ I ,200 annua lly- and even the Mayor' s allowance was cut by half. However, there was a limit: a suggestion tha t all civic dinners be stopped was given short shrift.

Thus was the debt scaled down to bearable proporti ons-£20,000, £ 13,000 and £53,400 were pa id back in three successive years from I 836. By 1840 the debt was redeemed . Obviously the opera tion was fa r from painless, but £5,000 a year had been saved in interest pay­ments. As against this, some £ I ,000 had been lost in estate rents and a smaller sum lost in rents and renewals on city properties. In all this economizing the Liberals were in their element and it was ironic that the Conservative Council was compelled to do what their politica l opponents, hitherto excluded from the municipal body, had been urging for years. Preoccupa tion with economy a nd fin ancial reform was, of course, a characteristic of the beginning of many reformed councils. t4

1 1 Lcller from Lords of the Trea sury, 17 Februa ry 1838; ibid .. 28 February 1838, p. 283.

1 2 C ity Lands a nd Impro vement Com mittee Book 1836- 1839, 18 April I 837, p. I 25. 1 3 P.C. (I), 5 Februa ry I 836, p . 38 and 2 December I 836, p . 278. 14 See e.g., D. Fraser, Politics in Leeds 1830- 52, p. I 90; B. D . Whi te, The

Corporation of Liverpool. pp. 19 and 27; A . Temple Pa tterson , Radical Leicester, pp. 216-2 18.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 155

The most serious financial problem was the charity account. All records, capital and interest of the endowments had to be trans­ferred to the Municipal Cha rity Trustees. The transfer even of those endowments which were not in dispute placed a tremendous strain on the Council's finances. Moreover, the Liberals who constituted a majority of the Trustees were not disposed to be conciliatory, even though over ha lf were members of the Council. Above all , there was the question of charity money which had in the past been diverted into the coffers of the former Corporation. Research into the mass of documents uncovered such grave misa ppro priat ions that the Charity Trustees were determined to demand to tal restitution. Some depredations were so recent or so flagrant that there was little difficulty in proving them. 1 5 Others were less easy to establish. One calcula tion of the amount involved was £344,000, a sum almost equivalent to the entire value of the municipal esta te. Faced with this legacy from the o ld Corporation, the new Council took the line that many of the claims were incapable of proof and that in a ny case it was not liable for the misdeeds of its predecessor.

The Trustees began by a pplying for possession of a ll records and accounts, cash in hand and securities. 16 This produced a diverse response. The dividends from charity stock were remitted , a nd as a goodwill gesture the Council ha nded over £6,000 in exchequer bills and a trifling amount in cash. It infuriated the Trustees by refusing to part with the documents 1 7 and by making an impudent offer to confer about the debt alleged to be owing to the Council from Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital. Transfer in February 1837 of over £30,000 in stocks and dividends accruing from eleven charities not in contention poured some oil on raging waters. The Council declined to ma ke any further concessions and had no compunction about reso rting to delaying tac tics. It needed a case in Chancery befo re the £ 19,000 principal of the Peloquin bequest came into the Trustees' hands in 1841.' 8 Further requests from the Trustees were turned aside a nd even ignored, a nd by May 1837 the Trustees had been driven to filing an information against the Council. The Trustees, who repeatedly proposed an agreed sett lement, regretted the municipal obstruction, and warned the Council that they would be obliged to institute a series of suits.' 9

To disentangle the accounts rela ting to Queen Elizabeth 's Hospita l estate, an exhaustive examination was conducted by the accountant of the Cha rity Trustees, Joshua Jones. His report indicated that the books had been fa lsified a nd the charity defrauded: there was owing to the charity a capital sum of £51 ,9 16, which with the addition

15 S upra, pp. 65-67. •• Bristol Charities Minute Book (I) 1836-1 842,21 November 1836, pp. 19-20. 11 See P.C. {I ), I February 1837. p. 334. 18 Bristol Charities Minute Book (I ), 15 January 1841, p. 557. 19 1bid .. 27 Octo ber 1837. pp. 158-159.

156 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

of simple interest amounted to a debt of £240,569. 2° Conservative newspapers pointed out that the C ity Council could be reduced to poverty by restitution payments. Robert Fletcher, who acted for the Council, argued, on the other hand, that in fact his employers stood in credit by £21,522. 2 1 At the Trustees' request, Jones examined the evidence again. He reaffirmed his original findings. 22 When a final appeal to settle was unanswered, the Trustees began legal proceedings. Although the Journal asserted that the Trustees were inspired by nothing more than " mere ward meeting swagger", the Council at last realized that further defiance was futile. It agreed to compromise.

Although suits for the recovery of some £86,000 were in train, the Trustees readily acceded to " an amicable termination of all legal proceedings".23 The Council agreed to pay £ 10,000 in respect of the four principal charities and £I ,000 in respect of minor endow­ments, and it transferred to the Trustees rents received since I January 1836 as well as capital and cash in kind. 24 In return, the Trustees withdrew objections to the Council's administration of the Ames Gift and of the Surplus Pilotage Fund . Six years' wrangling ended in "extreme co-operation" as the formalities were effected. If the law suits had run their course, the Trustees would certainly have recovered a much larger amount. Bearing in mind the attitude of the ratepayers, the Council was well aware of this si tuation. It endorsed the opinion of its charity settlement committee that the arrangement would

relieve the Inha bitants, not onl y from the necessary and certain expenses attending (the litigation's) continuance probably involv­ing an amount equal, if not exceeding, the sacrifice demanded, but also from the risk of a much larger pecuniary sacrifice. 2 5

This settlement can be seen as the last chapter in the practical transition from the o ld form of municipal government in Bristol to the new.

In the early days, almost the only heartening fin ancia l news received by the Council was when a comprehensive valuation of its assets showed that the value of its city and country estates covered the bonded debt four times over.

20 Joshua Joncs, Report 10 I he Trus /ees of /he Bris/01 Charilies ( Queen Elizabe1h "s Hospilal), 1837, p . 86.

2 1 Robert F letc her, Reporl [pu blished in conjunction with Jones· findings]. 1839, pp. 77-78 .

22 Joshua Jones, Fur/her Repor/ of 1he Accoums of 1he Corpora/ion of Bris1ol as la le Governors of 1he Queen Elizabe1h 's Hospi1al, 1840.

2 3 Bristol Charities Mi nute Book ( I), 13 December 1841 , p . 638. 2 4 P.C. (4), 12 January 1842, p. 136. " Ibid .. p. 128. See a lso Gazelle, 20 January 1842, p. 3.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 157

VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE 183626

Country estates Lands at rack rents Fee farm and chief rents Premises at rack rents Exchange and St. James Markets Town and Mayor's Dues (est.) Mansion House Reversions under lease

Total

£ 144,400 14,000 39,060 57,940 38,772 31,640

4,760 65,200

£395,772

(N.B. Public buildings, minor markets, advowsons and capitalized burgess money excluded.)

The finance and the city lands committees were merged in April 1836 and thereafter every effort was made to increase the revenue by efficient management. Portishead a nd H inton, the two principal estates retained, each returned a nnually £750-£800 in net revenue after one-third of the income was ploughed back in upkeep. Income from all other rents averaged £6,000, and of this only about£ I ,000 came from premises outside the ci ty. From 1849, as existing leases expired, they were normall y renewed on a seventy-five year basis, 27

and this had the im mediate effect o f a ugmenting receipts by some £300. In 1859, when the first printed rental was published, the Council still owned very considerable property, despite the unavoid­able a lienations.

SC H EDULE OF COU C IL PROPERTY 185928

A City

Number of lots Houses Commercial Sundry

Ground rents 130 Premises on lives 161 Renewable term 73 Terms absolute 66 Rack rents 105

20 P.C. (I). 15 February 1836, p. 65. 2

' P.C. (6), 4 J uly 1849, p. 229.

27 8 19 8 59 5 20 10 77 100

Annual Rem

£ 166 474 414

1,2 17 7,248

a Calculated from A Schedule of the Land. Houses, Ground. and Fee-Farm Re111s and other property, belonging 10 the Mayor. Aldermen. and Burgesses of the City of Bristol. Public buildings,judicial establishments, docks, Mayor's Chapel. a nd public baths a nd wash houses excluded.

158 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

B Coumry

Lessees Houses Acreage Annual Rent

Portishead 7 1 43 610 £1.424 Hinton 17 13 646 1,007 Woodmancott and Combe 20 11 52 27 Filton I 99 145

The establishment of a regular police force vied with finance as the most pressin g problem confronting the inaugural Council. As it was sta tutorily bound to do, the Council promptly instiga ted the action necessary to get such a force in operation. Joseph Bishop, an experienced London officer, was seconded to advise on pre­liminary steps. Within a few months four stations were ready, the headquarters being the old Guardhouse in Wine Street. Prospective constables were interviewed , and an energetic watch committee (nine from each party) was convened. 29 On 24 June 1836 the remodelled force began its duties, replacing the existing constables, and func­tioning in conformity with the advice and rules of a fifty-page " Regulation book". Until his death in May 1839, Bishop, at a salary of £300 per an num , superintended the fo rce. Under him were four inspectors, twenty-four sergeants, one sergeant-clerk and 198 con­stables, who received sixteen shillings a week. The la tter were nearly a ll below thirty-five years of age and above 5 feet 7 inches in height.

It was intended to defray upkeep by a wa tch rate, but because the incorporation of several suburbs created legal complications, all expenses were met by the borough rate. A high, initial outlay of £1 5,000 was required,30 but thereafter expenditure rose only gradu­ally. It was £ 11 ,650 in 1838 and £ 13,940 in 1850. A new central sta tion opposite the Bridewell was started in 1842. In 1845, to check rampant pilfering on the quays and to permit ladies to walk on Clifton Downs "without being exposed to insult", the strength of the fo rce was a ugmented by four sergeants and sixteen constables. One study of borough police in the early Victorian era states that the quality of a force could be gauged by using criteria employed in refo rms which established the London force. 3 1 From such a test Bristol emerges honourably- a utho rity was centralized , the entire borough was patro lled , strength was adequate (at least 1 to 550 population compa red to London 's I to 450/ 500), there was full-time employment fo r fixed weekly wages, and staff were carefully selected (of the ina ugural batch of 567 a pplicants, 258 were rejected as un­suitable) and strictly disciplined in quasi-military style. At its weekly meetings the watch commi ttee dealt most dili gentl y with all business,

2o P.C. ( I), 16 May 1836, pp. 148- 149. For further details about formation sec R. B. Waiters, The Establishment of Bristol Constabulary, pp. 25-31.

30 Journal H 1836- 1845, f. 114. 3 ' Jennifer Ha rt , .. Reform of Borough Po lice, 1835-56 .. , English Historical Review.

Vol. LXX. 1955. pp. 411 -427. See also R. B. Waiters, op. cit. , pp. 36-49 passim.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 159

including the sancti oning of gratuities. In collabora tion with the superintendent, the watch committee astutely spiked the guns of the Chartists and willingly advised other boroughs on organization. In 1848 the committee suggested a contributory superannuation scheme whereby all ranks would retire on two-thirds active pay after twenty yea rs' ervice. The watch committee was not habit ually parsimonious, ei ther in payments to individual officers or in general expenditure.

Unfortunately, its zeal and its progressive outlook did not wholly percolate through to the man on the beat. Keeping the peace in a city with no great reputation for law-abiding called for ceaseless energy. Drunkenness (22% of arrests in 1841 ) and vagrancy (19%) were rife. 32 Journeying to Glouceste( on serious cases could be a costly business. On occasions policemen conducted themselve in little better manner than the hundred wrongdoers weekly taken into custody. The chief abuses were officious and excessive use of authority and neglect of duty, and with these was all ied the common disease, a high turnover of staff. Almost at once, the Mercury , a crusader in exposing scandals, was citing instances of constables being too free wi th their authority. Other cases of unjust arrest or maltreatment of detainees sporadically figured in newspaper columns. Perhaps the two most serious incidents were when con­stables perjured themselves to shield colleagues who had made fa lse arrests after allegedly being assaulted. 33 In 1837 alone, sixty-nine unruly constables were dismissed, 169 fined for minor transgressions and thirty-nine resigned. 34 Typical mi sdemeanours were drunken­ness, being asleep on duty, being absent from duty, feigning sickness to avoid duty, and being caught in an inn or brothel during duty. By 1848 there were fewer infractions- only twenty-eight constables were dismissed and twenty-four resigned . Taking into account the scarcity of able recruits and the lack of governmental guidance, the Council fashioned as respectable a unit as the circumstances per­mitted.

Under the 1835 Act councils were cast in a strange role as regards the administra tion of criminal justice. While all borough authority over the courts was removed and all criminal jurisdiction in boroughs abolished, the councils remained liable for virtually all costs in this sphere. It was at the discretion of councils to petition for the establishment of courts, and the Bristol Council promptly forwarded such a request. Once the furore over the selection of magistrates for political reasons had died down, the Bench met on 3 M ay 1836, and this was soon followed by the inaugural Quarter Sessions. Sir Charles Wetherell was confirmed as Recorder and voted an annual salary of £400. The Home Secretary granted an

32 Bristol Statistica l Society, Fifih Annual Report 1841 , p. 11. 33 Merc11ry, 13 November 1841 , p. 8 and 23 September 1843, p. 8. 34 Wa tch Committee Proceedings Book ( I) 1837.

160 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- /851

Assize but inexplicably refused to continue the Court o f G aol Delivery,35 thus causing inconvenience because prisoners had to be sent to Glo ucester for tria l. A further reduct ion in sta tus ensued when the general Act o f 1837 transferred contro l o f the gaols to the Justices in Quarter Sessio ns.

Altho ugh sho rn o f its powers, the Council retained a n a biding interest in the pena l system- that of the purse. Justices had to be provided wi th a room in the Council Ho use a nd thei r clerks' salaries had to be paid . At the Qua rter Sessions, officers had to be supplied , a nd pa rt o f the prosecutio n costs (a bo ut £350-£400 annually) had to be defrayed . All general expenses a ttenda nt on the Assize were borne by the Council , as were the running costs o f Newgate (abo ut £3,500) a nd the Bridewell (abo ut £800). Later, there was restiveness a t the cost o f a lterations to the gaols and there was a terse ex­change of notes with the Justices.36 In theo ry, extravagance could be prevented simply by refusing to sanct ion expenditure, but as several councillors ruefully learned , their influence over regula tions was minima l.

With mino r excepti ons, the 1835 Act left the sta tus of c ivil courts unchanged . Bristo l's bevy o f co urts were never entirely models o f effective machinery. To the annoyance of the Council , immediately Wetherell became ex officio stewa rd of the T o lzey Court , he deputed the former To wn C lerk, Ludlo w, to preside in his stead . 3 7 Legal opinion was consulted about evicting Wetherell , but in vain . Later in 1836 a committee repo rted that excessive fees o pera ting in the Court o f Requests, where a n octogena ria n, Joseph Smith, presided, were ha mpering its utility. On compassio nate gro unds their revision was deferred until the incumbent 's demise. This occurred in January 1839, and his successor, Arthur Pa l mer, 38 was instructed to o perate a revised scale o f fees. Fo r o nce, ho wever, Burges had failed to comply with the terms o f the Act , a nd under threat o f court pro­ceedings, the Council had to revert to the fo rmer scale.

Much concern was caused by shady p ractices in the Court of Conscience, the Registra r of which, Jo hn W ilcox, was bedridden and had retained many hundred po unds o f suito rs' mo ney in his own keeping. When a councillo r commented on this, Wilco x wro te an intempera te letter indicating that he would have bro ught a libel action if the accusatio n had no t been co vered by privilege. When Wilcox died in 1837, owing abo ut £ I ,800, the leglisla tio n governing the Court was repealed and regula tio ns tightened .39 The cure was no t permanent , for in 1843 there were insinuatio ns that the serving o f executio ns against debto rs was best expedited by bribery. 4 0

" P.C. ( I), 8 July 1836, p. 194. 36 P.C. (4), 4 August 1841 , p. 29. 3 ' P.C. ( I). 9 November 1836. p. 260. -'" Supra. p. 150. 3

" P.C. (2), 2 September 1837, p. 120. 40 Ga:erre. 18 Februa ry 1843. p. 6.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 16 1

In general, however, the civil courts satisfied a vita l need . During a single day in 1837 the Court o f Conscience dealt with 430 cases, and if j ustice was ra ther summa ry (a turnover ra te of It minutes per case), at least many credi tors received their due. In 1842 the Courts of Request and Conscience together hand led some 9,000 cases. Spurred on by a memo rial signed by over I ,500 citizens, the Council peti tioned for the suspension o f the genera l Bill then pending for the reorganiza tion of civi l courts.41 However, it became law as the County Courts Act, 1846, and the Bristol County Court, super­seding the two inferior courts, held its firs t session in March 1847. The Crown had arrogated the rig ht o f a ppointment, tho ugh this might no t be imagined fro m the selectio n of o fficers. Arthur Palmer became judge, and he was assisted by Willia m Brice (City Solici to r), Ed ward Ha rley, Jr. , (son of A lderman Ha rley) a nd Ja mes G ibbs, Jr. (son of Councillo r Gibbs) as joint clerks. As j ustice came to be standardized, the suppressio n of local courts of records was probabl y inevi table, but these two courts, in giving cheap redress, had been apprecia ted by tradesmen anxio us to ma ke use o f their facili ties fo r "the more effectua l and speed y recovery of small debts" .

The Counci l was p robably eager to undertake spectacular projects for the City's improvemen t, but it was d issuaded from doing so by its financial plight. Accordingly it concentra ted on the more mun­dane tasks of curbing priva te encroachments and o bstructio ns, a nd of regulating the markets, the hackney coaches, fisheries on the river and ferries and trade on the harbour. For this purpose it had enacted a new consolidating measure, T he Bristol Encroachment Act, 1837. This conferred power to deal with such nuisa nces as unlicensed hawkers, d umping rubbish, unmuzzled ferocious dogs, fir ing guns, using bells o r trumpets to advertise goods, selling un wholesome flesh foods, indecent exposure, and the illegal emptying o f privies. It gave authority to order the demolitio n of ruino us houses o r walls. Another

· clause required tha t a ll doors a nd gates with d irect access to the streets sho uld be so hung as to o pen inwards. Apparently the Act ful fi lled its intentio n, for there was a noticeable decline in the number of complaints registered in the 1840's.

Profits from the two principal markets con tributed ome £2,500 towards the Council's income each year, but the two fairs- Temple in Ma rch and St. Ja mes in July- were not regarded favourably. They were a lleged to lure the working classes into an orgy of sensu­ality a nd licentio usness, and the Council had inserted into the Encroachment Act a clause permitting it to d iscontinue fai rs and markets. A committee of investigation was set up in November 1837 with terms of reference which suggested that the issue was prejudged. Its report roundly declared that it was the

earnest desire of a great majority of the considera te and well •• P.C. (4). 3 August 1842, pp. 234-235.

162 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

disposed inhabitants ... to suppress the two fairs ... and thereby to preven t a recurrence of those disgusting scenes of pro fa neness, of drunkenness and debauchery which have inva ria bly, and to a n alarming ex tent, prevailed .42

One councillor who had actua lly inspected the fa ir sta ted tha t the average nig htly throng consisted o f 530 labo urers and mechanics and 220 thieves a nd prostitutes.43

Once the vestries which owned the si tes had been compensated fo r future loss of income by a "genero us offer' ' fro m some of "' the religio us public", no one sprang to defend this traditio na l amusement o f the poorer classes and the fairs were a bo lished .

With the closing o f St. J ames· Fa ir, the hay a nd coal market was esta blished in Broadmead . This was never profi ta ble, costing the ra tepayers £2,000 in its first decade of opera tio ns. It was certainly no compensatio n fo r those accusto med to findin g a musement in the va rio us pleasures o f the fairs. Sympathet ic obitua ries o n the pass­ing o f the fa irs were prono unced by the Liberal pa pers. Commenting that " the spirit o f intolerance is ever the same in a ll ages", the Mercury asserted that more stringent reg ula tio ns were the answer to any excesses genera ted by the fa irs. If vice was rife. abolition o f the fa irs would no t extinguish it but merely move it j ust o utside the City bo undaries44

In its early years the Council was preoccupied with fin ancial p roblems, and act ive improvements could no t be con templated. Peti­tio ns fo r the widening of congested tho ro ughfares lay o n the ta ble, and it was no t until the winter o f 1839 that an improvement com­mittee came into being. 4 5 Almost the o nly interes t displayed by the Council was in the state o f the turgid and malodoro us Fra me and in a privately-financed scheme to enha nce Bra ndo n Hill as a park. This civic inertia was passively accepted by the citizens.

A n invigora ting, cha nged o utlook towards urba n renovation was heralded by the a ppointment in May 1839 of a committee cha rged with framing legisla ti o n concerning the upgrading of st reets and the regula tion o f buildings a nd pa rty wa lls. In spite oft he utmost diligence a year elapsed befo re the Bill was presented . Delay was unavoida ble: the crea tio n of a new improvement division within the administra tio n was envisaged a nd the a bility o f the 1837 Act to curb nuisances needed to be tho ro ughly re-exa mined. In a com­mendably progressive gestu re, the Bill was submitted to the parishes fo r their o pinions: no ne were received .

What reached the sta tute book was a comprehensive measure of over eightyclauses. The Bristo l Improvement Act, 1840(3 Vic.,c.77) gave, inter alia, a utho rit y to widen o r create any street, to identify

4 2 P.C. (2), 16 July 1838. p. 382. 4

3 Gazelle. 19 July 1838. p . 2. 44 Mercllr)', 2 1 July 1838, p . 3. Sec also Ga:ette, 19 J uly 1838. p. 3. 4

' P.C. (3). 6 December 1839, p. 188.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 163

streets by names and houses by numbers, a nd to impose a maximum fi ne of £2 for committing a nuisance in a pu blic place, including loi tering by a prostitute for the purpose of solici ting to the annoy­ance of passers-by o r residents. Supervision of the work fe ll to the improvement committee, which administered the improvement fund. This origina lly consisted of the Weare gift4 6 valued a t £ I 0,000 a nd up to£ 15,000 raised in loans. Four part-time surveyors and a clerk were to enforce strict regulations covering the strength and construc­tion of certain walls and roofs. The rights of affected property owners were safeguarded a nd the Act outlined the machinery fo r the com­pulsory acquisition of property. Heading the li st of projects was a plan to improve the western access to the city via Redcliffe Hill. The street was na rrow, congested and almost impassable by carts in slush and snow. Parish meetings sanctioned the project, a nd in 1840 preliminary negotia ti ons started in anticipat ion of parlia men­tary approval. lt was quite a bo ld plan involving the lowering of Redcliffe Hill , the widening of Redcliffe Street, and fo rming of Phippen Street. The land alone cost£ 18, 178, but disposal of surplus tracts and the receipt of a 50% subsidy from the Paving Commis­sioners for levelling and paving reduced the fi nal cost to about £ 16,000.4 7 During the format ive stages the committee was handed a memoria l objecting that the planned line of buildings would obscure the view of that superla tive church, St. Mary Redcliffe. Not only was the scheme revised , but o f its own volition the committee purchased for demolition two further intervening tenements.4 8

Of no less significance than the Redcliffe work s were the enlarge­ment of the Bridewell a nd rebuilding of the Guildhall . Overcrowding in the House of Correction was endemic- often over one hundred prisoners were herded into cells designed to ho ld fifty-six. Under the finance committee 's a uspices, a n extra block of fo rty- two working cells was built at a cost of over £4,000.4 9 The ultimate cost of the project exceeded the o rigina l estimate by 200%.

The Guildhall was quite inadequate for the purposes for which it was needed. Two courts held simultaneous sessions in the same room, while the Bankruptcy Court was relegated to the lo ft s. For three years the Council pondered on the merits o f modifying the exist ing structure as opposed to rebuilding. It sett led on complete rebuilding, but delayed fo r a further two years pending the presenta­tion of a report which, ironically, emphasized the " urgency" of the scheme. so Work belatedly started and proceeded so rapidly that it was completed in three years (mid-1846) at a cost o f £ 12, I 00. Most of the money was bo rrowed from the Public Works Loan Commis-

46 ln 1828 Counci llor Wearc donated a sum in retu rn fo r a life annuity of £500. The consols purchased brought £I 0, 174 when sold .

4 7 1mprovcmcnt Committee Minute Book 1845-1850, 17 October 1848, p. 343. •• P.C. (4}, 31 October 1842, pp. 280-282. 4 0 Ibid., 9 ovcmbcr 1842, pp. 29 1-292. ' 0 Ibid., 12 April 1843, pp. 336-339.

164 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

sioners a t 5% interest with 5% of the capita l repayable annually. 5 1

This was the first occasion when such a source of finance was tapped. As the Guildhall took shape, unease about its suitability mounted.

It was alleged that it would prove to be an improvement in name only. ews of the controversy reached Fleet Street, and The Times despatched a reporter to ascertain whether the complaints were justified. After managing to secure an exclusive preview of the un­finished interior, he concluded sardonically that all the worst defects o f the la te building had been preserved in its replacement. 5 2 Two courts were needed, one was built; the o ld court was cra mped, the new was even smaller; accommodation for attorneys was not pro­vided; the public gallery was an insult . " Ta ken as a who le", explained The Times, " the new court is as much inferio r to the o ld one as tha t was to a ll the o thers." In rebuttal , the Council argued tha t the legal profession had approved the edifice as lofty, excel­lently ventila ted , well-lighted a nd suita ble acoustically. However, ho les had to be bo red in the ceiling to allow ai r to ci rculate, and La timer cited one judge's apt remark that the place was " the perfec­tion of inconvenience". A committee was hurriedly convened to inquire into the worst drawbacks, but with the advent o f cooler weather the controversy subsided.

By a queer coincidence, as the Guildhall fiasco reached its climax, a report on improvements was submitted (August 1845) envisaging the outlay of hundreds of thousands of pounds. This represented a total break wi th previous thinking on improvements. 53 Its scope and ramifications precluded any hasty verd ict on what it contained . Most striking among the proposals were the formation of an entirely new thoroughfare (Victoria Street) between the railway station and the bridge (estimated to cost £84,5 1 0), widening of the road from Hotwells to St. Augustine's Back (£63,900), and the a rching over of the Frome (£3,400). Some citizens were taken a back by the financial implica tions- it was rumoured tha t a ra tes rise of 63% in seven years would be necessary- but there was widespread a pproval that the Council had woken up from a protracted slumber. Action to deal with tha t "offence to the senses, the festering Froome" was universa lly welcomed. Unfortunately, however, the long-debated municipalization of the docks 5 4 was included as a supposedly integral part o f the composite scheme. It was genera lly agreed that the port transfer took precedence and that Bristol lacked the mea ns to carry out all the proposed improvements simultaneously. This spelt the temporary shelving of the improvements.

After consulta tions with the citizens, in October 1846 the Council produced a n amended scheme which entailed the more modest outlay

" See Bond Books 2 1739-1845 and 3 1846-. s' 111e Times , 29 August 1844, p. 7. sJ P.C. (5). 13 August 1845. pp. 175- 178. '

4 /nfra. 167- 170.

The Fun et ions and A et ivit ies of the Council 165

of £76,060. 55 In this version the main feature were pre erved, if pared down, and to placate influential Clifton ratepayers substantial street works in that area were promised . A sanguine estimate that 30° 0 of the outlay would be recouped by selling surplus land also enhanced the appeal of the plan. Two of the five main schemes would pay for themselves, and a loan of £40,000 and an improvement rate of no more than 2d. in the pound would finance the rest. Legislation (10 & 11 Vie., c. l29: The Bristol Improvement Act, 1847) was passed but it was not utilized because of apprehension that settlement of the dock transfer might be jeopardized. 56

Not unti l mid-1 849 was it judged propitious to revive the scheme. Even then, several of the most cherished plans were ruth lessly revised. Interest, law charges and a loan which was under-subscribed created further difficulties for the committee. 57 A final, despairing effort to get the Victoria Street scheme underway in 1852 failed because of the animosity of ratepayers. Probably the hesi tancy and languor more accurately reflected the popular feeling than did the enthusiasm of the committee. The projects may have been premature, but they were neither extravagant nor frivolous. The hand icap they bore was in having to be appraised against the municipalization of the docks and the improvement of public healt h, and they had no demonstrable effects on trade or bodily health. Traversing the tortuous maze of streets could be quite hazardous, but it was not yet the era of the traffic jam. After a ll , such improvements could be undertaken at any ti me and thus were peculiarly susceptible to being sacrificed when retrenchment was necessary. Nearly a ll the discarded schemes ultimately had to be adopted, a fact which placed the Council's eq ui vocal policy in an adverse light.

Remembering the condemnation the unreformed Corporat ion had suffered over its indifference to trade, the Council from its inception strove to ea rn a better reputation. Within a year a permanent com­mittee was investigating the whole range of port charges. 5 R Beneficial results were soon obtained: in March 1837 the Merchant Venturers had negotiated the termination of the lease of the cra nes and cranage dues. However, when the Merchant Venturers in 1841 ought to relinquish superintendance of the river and the pilots, they were rebuffed. 59 The Council policed the harbour for encroachments, reckless na vigation by steam boats, and for evasion by the Dock Company of its statutory obligations to maintain the river banks, quays and certai n drainage. It needed a court prosecution to compel the Company to repair the banks. Complain ts about the depth of water at berths, the state of quays and walls and numerous impedi-

" Journal, 31 October 1846, pp. 3 and 6. so P.C. (5), 15 January 1847, p. 424. 5 ' Improvements Ledger 1842-1859, f. 87. 5 ~ P.C. ( I), 25 ovcmbcr 1836. pp. 263-264. 59 P.C. (2). 29 April 1837, pp. 28-29 and P.C. (4). 5 May 1841. p. 41.

166 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

ments to naviga tio n were una bated a nd fina lly culminated in a major report o n the sta te o f the ha rbo ur, a nd the establishment o f a st ronger port and harbo ur committee.60

O ver o ther facets of trade the Council wielded little direct influ­ence. Ho wever, it was will ing to !end its position and prestige to help procure fro m the Government measures beneficial to trade. ln 1837 a pe titio n was despa tched deploring the delay in sta rting a steam trade to lndia. Inevitably the transit of mai l was no t fa ul tless, a nd the Council intervened over anoma lo us postage ra tes (1837), the diversion of southern Irish a nd South Wales ma il thro ugh Glo ucester ( 1845) and cramped post o ffice accommodatio n ( 1848). It a lso fos tered in a modest way the coming of the ra ilways a nd showed a li vely apprecia tion tha t Bristo l depended on its trade. Proba bly the demise of the once-ro bust Cha mber of Commerce in the la te 1840 's was regre tted nowhere mo re than in the Council from whence its officers had usually been d rawn.6 1

Assiduo usness in improving po rt facil ities a nd in fos tering trade lost momentum because of the negative a tt itude of the Dock Com­pany. By the la te 1830's it was no longer pretended that the rate o f increasing p rosperity in Bristol matched that o f prominent com­petito rs o r even mino r ports " in her own channel":

Hull , Liverpool, and other portS, a lo ud Cry, "Go a-head" ; A certa in place that l know seems to say, " Reverse," instead .62

Almost una nimo usly, the blame for thi s rela tive stagnation was p inned on the Dock Compa ny. Bristo l was unique in England in having its docks managed by a priva te company. The floating harbo ur was a classically a iling enterpri se, grossly under-capitalized , with repa irs sometimes consuming the entire o perating surplus. Investo rs fo und it a n una ttractive pro positio n- by 1845 shares o riginally worth £ 135 were unwa nted a t £60 and dividends in the two decades befo re 1844 a veraged o nly £2 4s. 5d .%. The pro prie tary d irecto rs concentra ted on producing wha t meagre re turn they could for the shareholders, some of whom were children or widows. They insisted on exacting every dock due to which they were legally ent itled . Ships discha rging a t pri va te wharves o r dri ven by gales into Po rtishead were fo rced to pay dues. The cla mour that high dues meant a low overall revenue left the Dock Company quite unmoved.

The Council did wha t it could to allevia te Bristol's inhospitality to traders, but its influence was limited . By 1837 receipts o f £ 1,500 from the town and the mayor's dues were overshado wed by dock

6o Ibid. , I Ja nuary 1844, pp. 468-469. 6 ' See A. B. Beavan, Bristol Lists, p. 134. 62 Extract from " Ode to Captain Hoskin". by Jo hn D ix in Local Legends and

Rambling Rhymes ( Bristol: n.p., 1839). p. 128.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 167

dues twenty times as la rge. The nine municipal dock directo rs were in a dilemma- they were nominees of a body committed to revitaliz­ing the port but they found themselves a t loggerheads wi th the proprietary directors, who were unwilling o r unable to understand the effects of neglect and penal tariffs. Soon councillors were refusing to accept appointment to the directorate o f the Dock Company: those who did consent chose a po licy of inactivity. Quite clearly an impasse had been reached.

Somewhat surprisingly, this was broken by the churchwardens. 63

As a result of their initia tive, and because of alarm that the Great Western Steam Ship Company might shift its headquarters, the Council sponsored a conference in June 1839. 6 4 At this, the chief ills, both physical a nd fiscal , were aired. The ensuing report recom­mended that sagging finances be restored by raising further capi tal amo unting to £375,000. T o pay for £95,000 worth o f renovatio ns, the report advocated massive borrowing. T o enha nce the port's appeal the harbo ur ra te was to be a bo lished and the tonnage dues severely cut. To keep the sha reholders ha ppy, sink ing fund proceeds were to be diverted until a 5° 0 dividend could be declared. Though these proposa ls were admirable in theory, their feasibility was dubio us. The pro prietary directo rs were both sceptical a nd scathing. Not o nly would their implementatio n cost £ I ,000 mo re annua lly than the average o f the last two years' revenue, but the re turn to shareholders would be depressed to a derisory figure of£ I Is. 5d.%. Their final declara tio n squashed the entire pla n:

tha t the parties at whose expense, principally these objects a re proposed to be attained should give their consent to a scheme in which their interests are disposed o f with so free and lavish a hand, there can be no rational ground fo r expecting. 6 5

Confronted by such o bduracy, most interested parties saw muni­cipalization of the whole undertaking as the o nly a nswer. Urged on by the Chamber o f Commerce, and shamed by the fact that certa in private citizens were moving independently, the Council prepared a plan for such a takeover.66 Shareholders were to be given a C ity note worth £ 147 9s. Od . per sha re, interest thereon was to be fixed between £2 Os. Od . and £3 5s. Od .% and promissory no tes issued by the Dock Company would be replaced by 5% City no tes. When the parishes were consulted , there was a broad endorsement: twelve agreed without reservation, two offered no opini on; two approved in principle while dissenting from certain terms, and fo ur- signifi­cantly, a ll distric ts added by the 1835 Act- o pposed any transfer involving increased local taxa tion . As a result , the Council se ttled

6 J Journal, 16 February 1839, p. I. 64 P.C. (3), I J uly 1839. p. 43. 6 5 Report of Dock Proposals 1839. p. 27. 66 P.C. (3). 9 November 1839. p. 174 and Journal, I February 1840, p. 3.

168 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

o n a .. very fa ir" o ffer of £2 Ss. Od .% interes t per share. T his exceeded the previous seven years' average return by 30° 0 , and it was to be guaranteed by the Council. The directo rs might have been expected to welco me such a sett lement, but they did no t. 67 They believed tha t the mo re trade stagnated a nd facili ties de terio ra ted , the more the Council would be anxio us to buy them o ut a t an infla ted price. If by some mischance trade ac tua ll y boomed, revenues and dividend would rise correspo ndingly. The Council , completely frustra ted, reverted to the lame policy o f waiting for the other side to com­mence new nego tia tions.

Fo r the ensuing fi ve years no thing much changed. The Company was induced to underta ke some repairs, which precluded any divi­dends from being decl ared in 1844 and 1845. Abo ut this unsatis­facto ry situat ion, the press was highly crit ical:

The Dock Company is the cancer o f ... Bristo l, a nd we must ei ther o ut with it , o r suffer it to strike its fa ngs still deeper into o ur system. 68

In alluding to the Compa ny 's acquiescence in the cit izens "being periodically poisoned by the pestilentia l miasma fro m their stagnant d itch", the Ga:ette crudely suggested that, fro m past experience

no thing sho rt of compell ing every Dock Di recto r to drink a quart o f their own Huid , bubbling with the decomposi t ion o f an imal ma tter, every two ho urs, is li able to prove effective. 6 9

At least, the paper remarked , the Company was getting rid o f surplus po pula tio n a t the same time it was driving away fo reig n trade. It became the fashio n to ma ke the beleaguered Compa ny the scapegoat fo r empty ho uses, unemployment, deserted wharves, unpaid rates, ba nkruptcies and the prevailing commercia l malaise.

Receipt o f a mem o ria l bear ing 600 signatures soliciting the "earliest solu tion of the Dock questio n" induced the Council to resume nego tia tions in September 1845. With unanimo us press backing, prel iminaries were waived and the central issue- the ra te o f interest o n forfeited shares- was immediately confronted. A raised o ffer o f £2 I Os. Od.% a nd associa ted benefits was turned down. Instead , the directors asked fo r £3 Os. Od .0~,70 a n exorbitant demand when it is remembered tha t the returns o n sha res had averaged o nly £ 1 !Os. Od .%.

The gap o f lOs. Od.% seemed unbridgea ble unt il 1,200 ra tepayers and pro perty owners, impatient a t what they held to be a quibble over a few hundred po unds, pe titio ned in February 1846 fo r a n

0 ' P.C. (3). 6 Ma y 1840, p. 296. •• Mercury. 12 September 1840, p. 8. 60 Ga=ette, 11 August 1842. p. 3. ' 0 Journal, 20 September 1845. p. 8 a nd 22 ovcmbcr 1845. p. 3.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 169

arbitrated settlement. The Council's committee then proposed arbi­tration between a maximum figure of £3 Os. Od.% and a minimum of £2 Os. Od.% per share. Quite probably this was a public relations exercise, for the Council could not seriously have expected the directors to consent to a solution which might have amounted to 5s. Od.% below the figure suggested in 1839. Clifton ratepayers, unable to perceive any benefit accruing to their district, declared that the offer was but "a device on the part of the Bristol mer­chants ... to pick the pockets of the gentlemen of Clifton ". 7 1 As it happened, their fears were not realized . The final offer of the directors for arbitration on the basis of a minimum of £2 I Os. Od .% and a maximum of £3 Os. Od.% was unacceptable to the Council and it promptly closed negotiations.

During the controversy Robert Bright, a West India merchant, had intervened with a series of incisive letters, which the press had gladly printed. Bright's father had been a veteran member of the Corporation, his brother was for a decade a Bristol M.P., while he himself, a moderate Liberal, had disdained local politics and preferred to serve as a Justice of the Peace. Bright's first suggestion­a free po rt- was very extreme. It was, nonetheless, the genesis of a central action committee, the first sign of an organized attempt to promote municipaliza tion of the po rt. The committee was soon transformed into the Free Port Association, which was to play a crucial ro le in building up the drive for refo rm.

For its part the Council, although apparently biding its time, was discreetly collecting data which proved concl usively tha t dock dues at Bristol were excessive compared with other ports. The Mirror , the most ardent disciple of municipalization among the press, demanded not a diagnosis but a cure for the "dullness of trade" and " rapidly decaying re tail shops". 72 The need for action was all the greater because an insidious proviso was creeping into man y ships' charters, namely, that ' 'a cargo shall be delivered in any port of the kingdom, except Bristol" . As a result of a huge public meeting on 29 September 1846 there emerged in embryo the Free Port Associa tion, pledged to secure the freeing of the po rt. Bristo l had seen an abundance of ephemeral, loosely-knit movements, but the Free Port Association was avowedly non-political, was well­organized, had ample funds and was supported by most local papers. Two historians of the port maintained that the Association in Bristol was analogous to the Anti-Corn Law League in Britain. 73 This is perhaps an exaggera tion, but there is no doubt that without the agi tation the port would have languished for years under the stulti ­fying control o f the Company.

From the outset the Association was very active. Ward meetings

" Mirror, 21 February 1846. p. 3. 72 Ibid. , 12 Septern ber 1846, p. 3. ' 3 W. N. Reid and W. E. Hicks, Leading Events in the History of the Port of

Bristol (Bristol. 1877). p. 83.

170 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

were held, an Operatives Free Port Associa tion (the working man's version) was founded, 7 4 an enrolment campaign ra ised membership to 2,500 and a permanent wa rd-based council was elected. Robert Bright beca me president and William Miles, M.P. fo r East Somerset I 834- I 865, became the Treasurer . Pa mphlets (Free Port Tracts) came off the press in a great number. Port charges were criticized, the list lessness of trade lamented, the " factious opposition" to transfer deplored. In genera l the pamphlets were designed to shock- they pointed out for example tha t 13% of the ra tes had no t been collected in 1847, and tha t the value of the property in Bristol had appreciated only 3! % in seven years.

Among extremists there was predisposition to believe that the Council was dragging its feet. 7 5 In fac t, the Council was a rming itself with statistics a bout dock cha rges and preparing- at last- to compel the Company to a bide strictly by the Acts. 7 6 Accusations about the Company continued a nd it was even alleged tha t it had stooped to the practice of obliterating the depth marks on the quay and had pa inted in a fa lse scale showing the water deeper than it actua lly was. At the November elections a ll candidates returned were com­mitted to a dock settlement. One veteran Conservative councillo r, James George, was ejected from his safe seat by a Liberal new­comer who stressed his opponent 's tenure of one of the dock directo r­ships a llocated to shareholders. The Associat ion then embarked on a po licy of making it seem that municipalizatio n was virtua lly inevita ble. It informed the Council that it was thinking of promoting legisla tion itself, a nd presented a combined memoria l urging the deferment of projected street improvements. In no way offended by wha t could be construed as an a ttempt to usurp its prerogatives, the Council agreed in February I 847 to confer with the Association through a committee which included Visger, Shaw, Richa rd King and Tothi ll, the experts on the issue.77 At the conclusion of pro­tracted negotia tions, a full meeti ng of the Compan y fina lly expressed approval in pri nciple to a transfer. Its task of media tion accom­plished, the Free Port Associa tion stepped aside.

What to offer as a fai r opening bid presented a problem to the docks negotiations committee. By opera ti on of the sinking fund, some £77,000 had been removed from original capita l of £594,0 14 made up of 2,209 shares a t £ 147 9s. Od. and £268,324 worth of 5% promissory notes. 78 Over the two decades ending in 1844 d ividends had averaged £2 4s. 5d .%, but o ut la y on improvements had led to a morato rium since then. Normal annua l average expenditure was £22,8 16,79 but it was esti mated that pending special repairs would

74 Journal, 5 December 1846. p. 4. 75 See M irror, 17 October 1846. p. 8. 7 0 P.C. (5), 5 August 1846, pp. 325-326. 77 Ibid. , 3 Ft:bruary 1847, p. 432. • s Figures a bstracted from Journal, 16 October 1847, p. 6. 79 Consisting principa lly o f interest payment s £ 13.4 16, sin king fu nd £500, repairs

£3.000.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 17 1

cost £63,000. lt was reckoned that the docks under municipal control would produce a n annual profit of between £ 1,707 a nd £3,655, depending o n the ra te o f interest. Taking all into account , the com­mittee wa inclined to recommend adoption of the Free Po rt Associa­tion's formu la, with agreed amendments. By this, forfeited shares were to earn £2 12s. 6d.% interest , 5% City no tes were to be sub­stituted for pro mi ssory notes, and the sinking fund was to be abolished . As a n additio nal benefit , £9,400 worth o f tonnage dues were also to be forgone.

By forty-two votes to four the plan was overwhelmingly endo rsed and ordered to be implemented 8 0 However, some councillors fo re­cast that the merchants would simply pocket the savings from the revised dues and not pass it o n as lower prices. They were uneasy tha t part of the deficit was to be met from a 4d. rate. In their edito ria ls, the newspapers were divided . Unqualified backing came from both the Mirror and the Journal, while the Gazette condemned the Council's offer as "extravagant and exorbita nt" and the Mercury unloosed a barrage of objectio ns, branding the Free Po rt Associa­tion as a villa in, '' freeing and feein g the Dock Company, without regard to the interests of the city at la rge". 81 This feeling that the Council had been blackmailed into paying an unjustifiably high price was not typical o f popular feeling. Any supposed handout to share­holders would be mo re tha n compen sated for by the resulting increase in trade. By December shareholders had approved the terms and sanctioned a dra ft Bill. 82

Opponents still nursed a for lorn hope tha t the measure would be thwarted. Clifto n ra tepayers, obsessed by the assumption that their district 's fo rtunes were unconnected with Bristo l's, maintained that it was a piece of class legisla tio n, whi le Herapa th and his " little band of ultra-Radical malcontents" wanted mo re popula r contro l of the port. Both gro ups were convinced tha t the p la n was a "benefit match" for the merchants. Accordingl y, a two-day public meeting at Broadmead a ttended by between 2,000 and 3,000 specta­tors, thrashed ou t the pros and cons. It endorsed the principle of transferring the docks to the Council , conditio nal on the creation of a £50,000 reserve to cover lia bilities, and electio n o f the board of management by the ratepayers. 83

Tho e o pposing the measure were heartened in la te February by an anno uncement fro m the G overnment that a n independent enquiry was to be conducted under the auspices of the Admira lty. For three days, William Bald, a civi l engineer, heard submissions. Burges, the T own Clerk , produced evidence o f widespread suppo rt for the

80 P.C. (5), 25 October 1847, p. 485. 8 1 Mercury. 23 October 1847, p. 8. Sec a lso M irror, 16 October 1847. p. 8. Journal

23 October 1847, p. 5 and Gazelle, 28 October 1847, p. 3. 82 Dock Company Mi nute Book 1846-1848, 18 November 1847, p. 87 and 27

December 1847, p. 106. 83 Journal, 19 February 1848, p. 4.

172 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

change a nd paraded as his star witness, Visger, by now possessing a n unrivalled knowledge of the port. He testified that whereas Li verpool's overall dues averaged Ss. 9td. per ton and Gloucester's 2s. I Od. , Bristol 's stood at 11 s. 3d. Co unsel for the o bjectors emphasized the burden on the ratepayers and the risk in not creating a £50,000 reserve. Though the Mirror's dismissa l of their case as " more persona l than pertinent, more ridiculous than rational" was scarcely objective, they made only a passing impact. The report84

explicitly accepted that trade had markedly declined and that it could be revived only by the Council taking over the docks and drastically reducing the dues.

One final chance to influence the outcome remained- alteration of the Bill by the Common's select committee. A retinue of solicitors, agents and counsel was engaged fo r the occasion. (In all , passage of the Bill cost the Council £7,500.) Before the sittings sta rted, those opposing the Bill committed a grave blunder: privately they sought to have Philip Miles, one of the Bristo l M.P.s, banned from the committee on the grounds that by virtue of his Dock Company shares, he had a pecuniary interest in the matter. They were publicly rebuked for their indelicacy and ignorance of standing orders and conventions. From this setback they never really recovered. Counsel for the Bill reiterated a rguments presented at the enquiry, stressed the commercial malaise which was a fflicting Bristo l and paraded Visger, Richard King a nd John Vining as expert witnesses. They also mobilized public opinion: in Bristo l and neighbouring towns 18,000 had affixed their signatures to supporting petitions. By con­trast, a counter-petition contained merely 6,500 signatures. 85 Oppo­nents o f the Bill voiced only general objections about the possibility of crippling ra tes and of unduly rewarding Dock Company share­ho lders. In calling no t a single witness, professional o r lay, to buttress their case, the objectors virtually conceded defeat.

In the circumstances, the select committee's confi rmation of the Bill was entirely expected. 86 Some amendments were inserted- the 4d . rate was fi xed as the maximum a nd a £70,000 repair and general fund was established-but no t so as to prejudice the intention of the Bill. Before it entered the Lords there were rumours of a last­ditch " factious and futile opposition": it did not materialize and the measure, which became law on 30 June 1848 (11 & 12 Vie. , c.43, The Bristol Docks Transfer Act 1848), went into effect a month later. All existing Dock Acts were repealed and the Compa ny was to transfer all docks and associated assets to the Council. The sinking fund was abolished and in return for the 4d. rate the Council was obliged to reduce the product of the dock dues by £9,400. Once

•• Admiralty Enquiry: Bristol Docks Tramfer Act: Preliminary Enquiry by William Bald. Esq .. C.E. ( M inwesofEvidenceand Report ); H.C. , 1847- 1848 (148-35), XXXI.

85 House oj Commons Journals. C ll ( 1847- 1848). pp. 264-448 passim. •• sec H.L.R.O. , Minutes of Evidence on Bristol Docks Transfer Bill , 13 April

1848. p. 2; 1-l .C. Evidence 1847- 1848. Vol. 7, Opposed Private Bills Group 9.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 173

the final deed was executed on 28 August 1848, a committee of fi fteen, with shippers amply represented , was chosen to manage the enterprise. A revised schedule of tonnage rates (cut by half o r one­third) was speedily promulgated in which all commodities except one hundred were exempted. 87 Amidst a great round of cheering the Master of the Merchant Venturers (also a councillor) announced that his Society intended to renounce all wharfage dues apart from those on genera l imports, which were lowered to 6d. A 4d . ra te was struck and a £30,000 special repairs loan sanctioned. The press wished the venture godspeed , and on a commemorative " free port" holiday, a seven-hour procession wended its way through crowded streets. Bright was le ted , but the Free Port Association itself, its contribution fo rgotten, had a so rry a nd tawdry end . 88

Trade was resurgent , but the docl<s committee could no t remain satisfied wi th what had been achieved. It devoted a n immense amount of time and energy to its task, and the lie given to those dubious about municipal capabilities. Weekly meetings were normal and sub-committees were formed .89 Such confidence was reposed in the committee that by 185 1 the original members had , wi thout exception, been re-elected en bloc each year. Majo r a lterati ons to basins and lock entra nces were ordered, and by 1850 a highly complex commercial concern was being run . The harbour and works covered seventy acres and up to 250 vessels could berth a t the 2,000 yards of quays and be worked by nineteen cranes. The depth of water varied from fifteen to twenty-five feet and vessels of up to fifty-four and thirty-six feet could enter at the Cumberland and Bathurst Basins respectively. Up to th irteen vessels o f 500 tons o r more could be repaired at one of the eight dry docks. 90

The residue of the municipal dues still troubled the Council. In Ja nuary 1849 a minor revision of the town and mayor's dues, which were still netling £3,000 per annum , caused unrest, a nd a 6,000-strong petition about their retention on staple imports like wheat, tea, rice, sugar and rubber was presented . The Mirror condemned the dues as " relic of the rough legislature of a barbarous age", but the Council , temporarily forgetling that the municipal (town and mayor's dues) and dock dues were ha ndled quite separately, pleaded caution until the first balance sheet was available. Later, six corn businesses, a sugar merchant and a timber importer refused to pay the dues. When the Council threatened to prosecute, the firm s all capi tula ted, and the two individuals who contested the action in the courts were unsuccessful. 9 1 As regards the dock dues, a fter the

8 7 P.C. (6), 30 October 1848, pp. 120- 122. Fo r a summary of the rela tionship between the Dock Company a nd municipal a uthorities see W. G. ealc. At the Port of Bristo/1848-1899 (Bris to l: Po rt o f Bristol Autho rity. 1968). pp. 1-9.

88 See J. La timer, Nineteenth Century Annals, pp. 30 1-302. 89 City o f Bristol : Docks Committee Minute Book ( 1), 11 September 1848. pp. 11 -13. 90 Informa tion extracted from ibid ., 25 February 1850, pp. 272-275. 91 See Letter by city solicitors, 7 December 1849; Town C lerk's Letter Book

1847- 1854, p. 171 a nd P.C. (6), 13 August 1850, pp. 372-373.

174 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

receipts had doubled, those levied on suga r were halved and those on tea, cocoa and coffee were to ta lly a bolished in August 185 1.

Soon the port was as fl ourishing as it was profitable. For the year ending 30 April 1851 there was a surplus of ordinary income over expenditure, and the unredeemed debt of shares and notes was reduced to £424,785. As the ta ble shows, 60% of outgoings related to the dock transfer, while the ratepayers were supplying nearly 25% of the income.

INCOME AND EX PE DITURE OF THE BRISTOL DOC KS 1851 02

(Percentages)

Tonnage rates 37·5 Interest on 5% notes 38·5 Goods rates 29 Rent (share) charges 21·5 Borough rates 16·5 O rdinary repairs 11·5 Harbour rate 7·0 Cleansing harbour 7·5 T olls 4·5 Miscellaneous 6·5 Feeder rates 3·0 Salaries 5·0 Miscellaneous 2·5 Interest on loans 5·0

Lockmen·s wages 4·5

Of the growing tonnage entering the port- 559,292 in 1848, 668,863 in 185 1- four-fifths was accounted for by coastal shipping. Even outward foreign tonnage, which had for a long time been declining, shot up by 50% in a single year. The value of principal Irish and British exports from Bristol near doubled in just two years. By every criterion Bristol was again a thri ving a nd growing port. The Mirror, the strongest advoca te of dock transfer, pro udly reminded its readers of the contrast between bustlin g wharves and bulging warehouses and the earlier era of decadence.93

Of course, the municipa lization of the docks was not solely respon­sible for this return to better times. Trade was already tending to revive, as the Dock Company's last accounts indicated, thanks to the a bolition of the corn laws and navigation laws a nd the dis­coveries of gold . The Docks Committee enjoyed the goodwill of the port's users, as well as a £5,650 annual rate and the credit to float sizeable loans. Ba lanced against this, there were interest payments, reduced dock rates a nd substantial a bnormal repairs. It must be remembered that in taking over the port the Council was not neces­sarily committed to freeing it of a ll dues. Yet it did not break its promise to lower the dues as an incentive to trading through Bristol. So the Council deserves credit for whatever proportion of the upsurge of trade was a ttributable to this factor. Once the port was divested of its unsatisfactory tripa rtite control and the new system able to show its worth, a ll agita tion for reversion to private control vanished. Probably the best conclusion is that municipalization fo rtuitously coincided wi th a nationa l boom in trade, a nd in thi s context, the

92 The Bristol Dock Accounts for the Year ending 30 Apri/185/ . 03 Mirror. 30 August 1851 , p. 8.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 175

Council astutely crea ted the physica l and fiscal conditions necessary for Bristo l to ta ke ad vantage of tha t trend.

o immedia te cha nge in responsibil ity fo r public health was fo re­shadowed by the 1835 Act , but in Bristol the enlargement of bo un­daries radica lly re-defined the problems of paving, lighting, drainage and sewerage. The Paving Commissioners exercised a uthori ty within the old city, which was practically conterminous with the o ld Corporati on 's area, but in some of the new out-districts there was no contro l at a ll over sanitatio n. Admittedly, the district of St. l ames and St. Paul had in 1832 obtained an Act setting up com­missioners modelled on their eminent neighbo urs in the o ld ci ty, but St. Phi lip and Jacob without, Bedminster, Westbury a nd C lifto n (apart from watching and lighting) were largely uno rganized in this ma tter. For over 50,000 Bristolians, the state of their public health was the concern of no o fficial body.

lt might have been expected that the Council , subject to sta tute and imbued with a n awakened sense o f duty, would have hastened to rectify this deplo rable state o f affairs, but no thing was done. o a ttempt was made to persuade the Paving Commissioners, who were themselves chosen by councillors, to agree to their own abolitio n. Almost the sole act which could be construed as fa lling within the a mbit of public health was in February 1836 when a committee was fo rmed to consider the lighting of the out-parishes.94 From this no practical results were achieved. This lethargy was an apt expression o f public opinion. Absence of agitation amidst dingy st reets pi led with refuse, cesspits, open sewers and contaminated wells can on ly be ascribed to an unwi ll ingness to be rated for this pu rpose.

Bristol's water supply was exceedingly imperfect. A few hundred Clifton families enjoyed running water pipes from private springs: 95% of the inhabita nts had to trudge to the nearest standpipe o r intercept a water-carrier, whose charges were o ften extortionate. For five yea rs the Counci l made no t even a token gest ure towards a llevia ting the situation. When towa rds the end of 1841 the Mer­chant Ven turers intimated thei r intention to sponsor an Act to supply Bristol a nd Clifton with water, George Thomas's prudent motion that the Bill be examined to see how the ci tizens· rights were a ffected could no t obtain a majo rity.95 As it turned out the Mer­chants' ambitio ns had o ut reached their resources and the plan lapsed. The Council must have been somewhat conscience-stricken, for in 1843 the finance committee was directed to consider whether a more efficient supply was obtainable. However, that overwo rked committee excused itself by pleading the vagueness of the direc tio n it received.

Flowing water was, or could be, a d istinctly profitable asset, a nd businessmen soon fo rmed the Bristo l Waterworks Compa ny, with

0 4 P.C. ( I). 23 Februa ry 1836. pp. 85-86. 05 P.C. (4). 9 ovcmbcr 1841. p. 79 and Merc11ry. 13 November 1841. p. 8.

176 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

the o bject of remedying a standing disgrace. This jolted the Council into considering the propriety o f water being supplied as a municipal utility.'> 6 But the wheels o f business outsped those o f local govern­ment, and early in 1846 the Council found itself courted by two rival suitors- the Waterworks Company and the Merchant Venturers, who had resurrected their former p lans. Support from the Council was ta ntamo unt to an assurance of success. Loyalties were placed under much strain , for a majority of councillors were interested parties, ei ther as Merchant Venturers or as Company shareho lders. Everyone agreed with the view that a cheap and abundant supply o f water for do mestic consumption was vita l, but in the struggle the case for a municipal water supply was summaril y dismissed . A mo tion that the Council at least participate was referred to the parliamentary bills committee and there lay neglected. After a motion to co-operate wi th the Merchant Venturers was resoundingly beaten by thirty vo tes to twelve, it was decided to give preference to neither promoter except in so far as they complied with the Benthamite precept of the best supply a t the chea pest rate.97 Thi s a mounted to an endorsement of the Compa ny's p la ns, which were more comprehensive, carefull y considered and mo re practicable. Pa rlia­ment was after a ·dour struggle persuaded that this was the proper course. 98

Bristol's Council did not inadvertently turn its back o n what cities like Leeds and Manchester then believed to be the legitimate province o f local government. Some councillo rs firm ly held that trading utili­ties lay o utside the legitima te sphere of municipal enterprise. Again, it was a rg ued that a company could give the project the kind of unremitting a ttentio n that the Council could not apply. Finally, it was felt that for the Council , after years of inactivity, to reverse its policy just when a com mercial firm was staking its claim, would be unjust. Possibly the dominant consideratio n in this complex affair was the speculative investments made in the Waterworks Company by members of the Council. Some of them may have ra tionalized their mo tives, which were not entirely ho no urable, and professed qualms about civic participation in the supply of water.

The fi rst indicatio n of a mo re enlightened a ttitude towards public health ca me with the a ppointment in 1844 of a ca refu lly-chosen committee to elic it information a bout the state of bui ldings and d rainage. In 1843 the enquiry conducted by Sir Henry de la Beche and Dr. Lyon Playfair under the aegis of the Royal Commission on the Health o f Towns, was evidently regarded as unworthy of mention in the Council's records. Yet their findings were scathing: "the Q ueen of the West"', which was supposed to have escaped the

•• P.C. (5). 7 May 1845, p. 125. 9 1 Ibid .. 7 April 1846, p. 291. 08 Sec J . Latimer, Nineteenth Cemury Annals, pp. 28 1-286 and Pa t rick McG rath,

The Merchant Venturers of Bristol. pp. 41 3-426. For a b rief his tory see Frederick C. Jones. Bristol's Water Supply and its Story (Bristol: Waterwork Company. 1946).

The Functions and Activities of the Council 177

worst evils of industrialism, was a place of squalo r, dirt and disease. 99

Drainage and crude sewage emptied into the Frome and Avon. The report argued that the city's water supply was the worst in the country, and it blamed unhygienic overcrowding on a population density which averaged 6·1 per dwelling. The mortality ra te (thirty­one per I ,000) was the third-highest in England : the chance of infants a ttaining adulthood was only 94%, and in any case, overall life expectancy fell just sho rt o f thirty-nine years. Yet this damning document seems never to have been debated by Council no r its existence formally minuted.

The report did, however, exerci se an influence. Its presence can be detected in the appointment in 1846 of the first drainage com­mittee, which was to confer with the Paving Commissioners on the extension of efficient drainage thro ughout the entire borough. 100

A belated but intensive review of public hea lth was undertaken by the same meeting of Council. lt was resolved, on the motion of J ohn Lunell , a Liberal in the vanguard of public hea lth reform , tha t the entire City be lit wi th gas, though a suggest ion for municipa lly­manufactured gas was rejected. It was also decided that a ll pumps, whether they functioned or not, be transferred to the care of the Paving Commissioners, who would maintain them.

And a t last the arching over of the Fro me was sta rted.t 01 For ten years despite memorials, reports, and a campaign by the press, this semi-sewer had been neglected by the civic a utho rities. In 1844 the Mercury printed a cha llenging, satirical rhapsody, " Guide to the Beauties of the Froome''. Its composer could no t understand why the " romantic rivulet" had been excluded from the recently published Rambles by Rivers. He then proceeded to escor t readers on a fic­tional journey upstream. This unsalubrio us tour passed the place where the current went ''sweeping round the bases of edifices which do no t recal [sic] the marble palaces of Venice", skirted the mill­pond ("a succession of tranquil la kelets" in which "are to be found (in all stages of decomposition) a great variety of animal creation' '), trudged over endless waste ground, tumbledown bridges a nd along a path which ended in the fe tid stream, and completed its course by squeezing through a ho le in the fence. The remedy was not im­mediate: in 1848, a local poet, writing under the nom de plume, " The Man in the Sun' ', included in his "Bristo l Beauties'' a dialogue between the Avon a nd the Frome in which the la tter is rebuked for its disgusting condi tion.102

Bristol was also deficient in the means of maintaining persona l 00 Health of Tou·ns Commission: Report on the State of Bristol (London:

H.M.S.O .. 1845). 10° P.C. (5), 3 July 1846. pp. 313-3 14. 101 The Fro me was progressively cul verted in the 1850's and 1860's, with the last

central section completed in 1867, to be fo llowed by the last major portion within the City boundaries in 1880.

102 Sec Mercury, 2 ovember 1844. p. 8 and Edward Martin and Bill Pickard (eds.), 600 Years of Bristol Poetry, p. 39.

178 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

cleanliness. Herapath had advocated the erection of public baths and wash houses as early as 1836. Nobody listened, and the Health of Towns Report deprecated the absence of such amenities. In a table of cities lacking public baths, Bri stol ranked first. In December 1844, a citizens' committee (among whom were eleven councillors) agreed that Bristol's na me must be expunged from this blacklist, 103

but the movement produced no definite proposal. However, the Baths and Wash Houses Act (9 & 10 Vie., c.74) presented the Council with a n incentive to act in the form of power to borrow from the Loan C0mmissioners. The Act was adopted a nd £7,000 borrowed. Two baths were sited on the Weir (St. Peters). At the forma l opening of the baths, which had forty-two cubicles, there was disappointment that the dignitaries present did not try the facili­ties for themselves, but 7,342 bathed in the first four weeks. In 185 1 the total attendance was 43,280, which produced receipts of £520. The wash houses, which contained thirty-six washing and twelve ironing compa rtments, came into service in August 185 1. Both facilities were at once popular, a ltho ugh in the early stages they did not operate a t a profit. 1 0 4

One further aspect of public health should be noted- the super­vision of the luna tic asylum. The official visito rs o f the asylum (St. Peter' s Hospital) were the Justices o f the Peace and three nominated cou ncillors. In 1846 they requested relief from this task, as was permitted under clause 82 of the 1845 Act. After praising their work, the Council decided that such a rearrangement was " no t expedient" .105 Eight years late the 1854 Lunacy Act placed this duty on boroughs a nd the Council was compelled to build at heavy expense an institution for the insane at Stapleton.

The passing of the nota ble Healt h Act o f 1848 led to a funda­mental change in the Council's relationship with the Paving Com­missioners. The Council now had the power to abolish them . A special committee started to examine the Act 's implications, chiefly at the instigation of the Bristol Association for improving the Public Health . This earnest o rganization , presided over by the Bishop ~4 Bristol, and numbering on its committee nine sitting councillors, also info rmed the Council that it had applied for an inspector to conduct an enquiry in to the City's mortality rate, 106 as a preliminary, it was hinted, to adoption of the Act.

This intimation of a n early abolit ion had an immedia te effect on the Commissioners. They tried to persuade the Council that there was no case for abolishing them . They argued that they were pro­gressive and had given the o ld city a sewerage system unsurpassed in England, and that the adoption of the Act was unnecessary. By

103 Ga:elle, 19 December 1844. p. 3. 104 See P.C. (5). 3 February 1847. p. 430 a nd P.C. (6). I Janua ry 1852, p. 545. 10

' P.C . (5), 11 March 1846. pp. 277-279. 'o6 P.C. (6). 9 ovember 1848, p. 133.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 179

a slim ma rgin (twenty-eight votes to twenty-four), the Council decided no t to acquiesce in wha t amounted to a bla tant a ttempt to tie its ha nds in advance. The most it was prepa red to consider was whether it should seek a n Act to extend the Commissioners' jurisdiction thro ughout the borough, 107 but when the Council majority in August 1849 implicitly requested the G eneral Board of Health to ho ld a n enquiry, it was certa in a ll hopes of a perma nent reprieve for the Paving Commissioners had disappeared . Bri stol was visited by a cho lera epidemic (which claimed 444 lives) a nd interest in the issue was mounting. Politica lly, the bogey of ··centraliza tion" was being assiduously fostered by ' 'the cha mpions of local govern­ment". They pro fessed to fear that rigid centra l dicta tion- right down to the clearing of cesspools- would be inflic ted on Bristo l. 108

As Bristol's mortality ra te (23· 5 per I ,000) exceeded the fi gure (2 1 per I ,000) specified fo r enquiries, the General Board of Hea lth in February-March 1850 sent down a n inspecto r, George Cla rk, who received the fullest co-opera tion in co llecting and sifting evidence. The resulting repo rt 109 was funda mentally a reiteration of the evils chronicled by its 1844 counterpa rt. The inspector d i covered that only 3,152 houses were customers of the Wa terworks Company, that drainage had been laid wi thout pla ns a nd sections, tha t 307 of the 649 streets within the Paving Commissioners' j uri sdiction were utterly neglected a nd that 40% of the popula tion resided in unlit streets . .. The grand defect, a nd the parent o f a ll o thers" was .. the want o f power, on the part o f the local government, to interfe re", when the need fo r action was universally admitted .'' 0 Applica tion of the Act was the only feasible solution.

The press saw in the issue an opportunity to indulge in some ponderous humour. The Journal resolutely opposed the .. obnoxio us principle" o f .. central contro l" which it imagined was ent renched in the Act. The Mirror which switched from a diffident support for adoption of the Act to uncompromising hostility, was attacked by the Gazette, which announced that

.. T he great Dirt interest has found a fitting if no t formidable advo­cate in the Bristol Mirror". 1 1 1

These bitter d ivisions among the press reflected a similar split a mong the populace. Resistance to the monsters of .. centraliza ti on", .. compulsion., a nd the .. threats to civil liberty" struck a sympa thetic cho rd in many citizens. To mobilize this la tent support , a public ra lly

1o7 1bid .. 24 March 1849. p. 191 . 10

" Sec Journal, I September 1849. p. 5 and D. J . Pattcrson. The Groll'th oj the Public Health System in Bristol, pp. 27-32.

100 Gcorgc T . Clark, Report ... on a Preliminary Enquiry into the Sell'erage. Drainage, and Supply of Water . and the Sanitary Condirions of rhe Inhabitants of the Ciry and County of Bristol (London: H.M.S.O .. 1850).

11 0 Ibid., p. 176. 1 1 1 Ga:eue. I August 1850, p. 5.

180 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

was held at which the principal speaker was J . Toulmin Smith, the most famous national opponent of the Act. He was accompanied by representatives from the Society for maintaining and extending local Self-Government. 11 2 The crucial resolution passed by the meeting was that which endorsed only legisla tive measures " in which the management shall be left in the hands of the citizens themselves". This was no general affirmation of principle, but was an oblique en­dorsement of a Bill then being prepared by the Paving Commis­sioners. Under this measure their jurisdiction would have been extended throughout the Council's area, and their counterpa rts in the out-parishes dissoived. 1 1

3

This was a final, desperate attempt to stave off abolition. lt encountered two insurmountable obstacles: first, it was inconceivable that Parliament would entertain a local Bill diametrically a t odds with the principles of the Public Health Act. Secondly, without the concurrence of Council , the prospects of the Bill were negligible. The Council determined its policy at its meeting of 25 November 1850. Before it were memorials praying for re tention of the Paving Commissioners, but this was offset by a repo rt from a Council committee to the effect tha t it was "perfectly hopeless and useless" to propose any enlargement of the Commissioners' territo ry.

A variety of arguments were advanced as to why it was in­expedient to endorse the Commissioners' Bill , and in any case, a group of councillors had been privately urging the General Board of Health to apply the Act unilaterally. 114 An a mendment to uphold the Paving Commissioners' Bill was defeated by forty-one votes to eleven. 11 5 During the debate it beca me clear that the bogey of "centralization" was unrea l. As the Local Board of Health the Council would be virtually a free agent, no less local or responsible than the Paving Commissioners who in any case by wanting to take over their district counterparts seemed to favour a kind of " local centralization". Fears had been expressed that the changeover would en tai l levying an extra rate of£ I 00,000, but these subsided when it became known that the Paving Commissioners themselves were drawing up estimates which necessitated a radically-a ugmented income.1 16

The Council had declared its ha nd and only the formalities had to be completed. To the last moment the Commissioners were recalcitrant, but to no avai l. By August 185 1 the old regime was supplanted, and the Council , having formally constituted itself the Local Boa rd of Health, set up a sizeable committee to supervise all

1 1 2 Mirror. I 0 August 1850. p. 8. 113 Viz., The District Commi sioners, the Clifton Lighting Commissioners, the

Boards of Highways in Bedminster and St. Philip. 11 4 Pinney Papers. Letter Book 28, pp. 376-377 and M irror. 20 July 1850, p. 8. " ' P.C. {6). 25 ovember 1850, pp. 41 3-4 14. 11 6 See Mercury , 9 ovember 1850, p. 8 and H. W. Bucknall, .. An Explanation

of the Operation and Effects of the Public Health Act, in .. . Bristol ... 1850, p. 5.

The Functions and Activities of the Council 181

duties. 1 17 Because these were arduous and time-consuming, the members consented to week ly meetings. Among the most urgent business was compensati on of officers employed by the defunct bodies, the striking of a special rate in lieu of that levied by the Commissioners and the staffing of the new department. 11 8 Public health demanded constant attention: its problems responded o nly to diligent treatment. Of all the Council's fu nctions at this time, possibly only the docks could claim equal significance as far as the future welfare of Bristol was concerned.

11 ' P.C. (6), 12 August 185 1. pp. 492-493. The Local Boa rd of Health had its own clerk and treasurer and did not meet in the Council ll ouse.

" " See Public Health Committee Book ( I) 185 1-1 852, passim; General Board Bristol Minute Book (I). 30 September 185 1. p. 6; D. J . Patterson, op. cit., pp. 36-41.

C HAPTER TEN

TH E F I NANC IAL SYSTEM

The chilling fin ancial climate which the Council had to endure forced it to be much more careful about its fin ances than the unreformed body had been, both in spending money and in supervising the treasury. In practice, it delegated its powers to an a nnuall y-elected finance committee which dealt with all no rmal transactions and reported to the Council. Reports could be rejected, but this rarely happened . Towards the end of the period studied, the docks, public health and improvement works were operated under accounts inde­pendent of the borough fund by committees whose disbursements were almost invariably ratified by the Council.

External checks on funds were the most striking innova tion. An abstract o f accounts was published annually, and there was a bi­annual audit conducted by a councillo r and two citizens, usually accountants, chosen by the burgesses. An Act of 1837 entitled a ci tizen who thought that the funds had been misapplied to obtain a writ of certiora ri 1 and have the disputed items examined in the King's Bench. The Act a lso imposed restrictions on the use of revenue raised from the rates, and required an annual statement of accounts to be submitted to the Secretary of State.

The printed a bstract rela ted only to cash received and disbursed, a nd was not used by Council as a means of contro lling the budget. Otherwise the accounting system resembled that of the defunct Corporation . After 1837 the Council received bo th quarterly and a nnual cash sta tements. Despite a tightening of procedure, the system was not foolproof. In 1856 distress a nd embarrassment was caused by the discovery that the Treasurer, Thomas Garrard , a lifetime servant , had embezzled over £4,000 from the borough fu nd. 2 Al­though full restitution was made, the defects of the system were revealed by the fact that Garrard, in steadily purl oining this money, had managed to circumvent the finance committee, the audit, and the quarterly repo rts. He came to grief not by being caught red­handed, but because he ha ppened to be absent through illness.

In the early years, the financia l atmosphere was never congenial. Ready cash was frequentl y short. By March 1837 the overdraft had reached £ 11 ,000: in 1847, upon Alderman Ricketts calling in his

1 By the Act o f 7 Will. IV & I Vie., c.78, cl. X LI V. 2 J. La timer. Ninneenrh Century Annals. p. 348.

The Financial System 183

£4,000 bond , Alderman Harley stepped into the breach by offering a similar loan at so 0 interest. 3 A standing arra ngement existed with the Incorporation of the Poor, which collected the ra te on Council's behalf, to advance money in anticipation of the collection of the ra te. lt was some time befo re debts could be paid when they fe ll due.

As well as having to cope with such difficulties, the fina nce com­mittee was delega ted such duties as the markets, supply of provisions to prisons and overseeing o f Council premises. In so fa r as it was treated as a general purposes committee, it was no t free to concen­trate solely on its primary responsibility.

A chronic problem for over a decade was the co llection of ra tes. The first rate, levied in January 1837, was calculated to yield £7,000. While the assessing of individual rates presented no difficulty, the same could not be said a bout their collection. By statute, the Incor­poration of the Poor was the general ra te collecto r, but a lthough the City's bo undaries had been substa ntially expanded by the 183S Municipal Corporations Act, those of the Incorporation of the Poor had not been a ltered . In response to memoria ls from severa l groups of ra tepayers, the Council had the rateable value of the C ity re­assessed .4 Convinced tha t they possessed insufficient a utho rity to perfo rm their ra ting functions, the churchwardens declined to assis t. In these circumstances the only option was to obta in clarifying legis­la tion, The Small Tenements Act, 1837. This required the church­wardens and overseers o f the poor, and the nominee of the In­corporat ion of the Poor to assess, strike and collect the ra te in those a reas joined to the C ity, wherea s in the older area the task was left in the hands of the Incorporation of the Poor.5

Bedminster and Westbury, bo th of which straddled the municipal boundary, presented particular problems, a nd by 184S the arrears a mounted to £4,204. It was therefo re necessary to obtain yet ano ther Act- the Bristo l Rates Act, 1845- which validated past levies a nd a uthorized the empl oyment of a specia l collector. The man chosen, J . Antrobus, who worked on the basis o f so 0 commission, ma naged to collect most of the a rrears. In o ther a reas, however, defaulters were very common. In 1848, for example, the expected yield of the borough rate fe ll sho rt by 14° 0 in the ancient city, 10° 0 in Clifton and 22° 0 in Bedminster.

The ina ugura tion of a full-scale police force a lone meant that the Council could no t perform its duties adequa tely on the revenue sources it had inherited from the Corporation. Withi n a year o f its creation the machinery for o rdering the first bo rough rate had been set in mo tion. Thereafter, as the following table shows, sligh t ly over

3 City Lands and Improvement Commit tee Book 1836- 1839,6 March 1837. p . 117 and P.C. (5). 27 October 1847, p. 494 .

4 P.C. ( I), 12 January 1837. p. 317. For the results see G . W. A. Bush. The Old and rhe Nell'. p. 687.

5 Viz .. C lifton. St. Phi lip and Jacob (witho ut ). the un ited district of St. James and St. Paul. and pans of Bedmi nster a nd Westbury.

184 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

half of the annual average income of £34,690 between 1836 and 1851 was derived from the rate. Disposal of most of the estates and the phasing out of the tenure known as leases for lives had the effect of depressing returns fro m these particular sources. However, they were offset by a steady rise in city rents, which rose in value from £5,553 in 1842 to £7,567 in 185 1. Altogether, " property" in some guise contributed one-third o f the average income. Discontinuance of the practice o f permitting certain officers to pocket the fees fo r service rendered lifted the income from fees to an average of £2,250 per annum.

PRINC IPAL ANN UAL AVERAG E SOURCES OF NET REVENU E 1836-1 85 16

(in percentages)

Rates (post 1848 Dock Rate omitted) Rents, Estates and Lease Renewals Markets Fees Town and Mayor's Dues Interest Miscellaneous 7

51·75 26 7 6·5 5·75 2 I

Quite clearly, a boro ugh fund without a borough rate would have been incapable of sustaining the Council's activities. Annual average income o f £34,193 in the period 1837-1 843 climbed to an average o f £40, 198 in the ensuing seven years, and as the following table indicates, this was a lmost exclusively accoun ted for by an increased yield from rates. The overall pattern revealed by the ta ble is one of attempting to ho ld the rates steady, only to have to succumb to increasing the levy every few years. In two years the Council contrived to avoid any increase and in ano ther four years actually achieved a reduction.

GE

1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844

R ECE IPTS FROM ERAL BOROUGH RATES

£18,579 1845 16,335 1846 17,000 1847 15,000 1848 16,000 1849 2 1,000 1850 17,000 185 1 2 1,000

1837- 185 18

22,000 22,000 24,000 24 ,000 2 1,000 23,000 25,000

° Calculated from stock balances in Journals H 1836-1845 and I 1846-1856. All known capi tal accretions excl uded .

' Principally burgess money. cranagc rates. remittances from St. Philip"s bridge trustees.

8 Figures extracted from Proceedings of the Council. books I to 6.

The Financial System 185

Capital accret ions in the sixteen years tota lled £250,000.9 Before 1841 , £ Ill ,500 was realized by property disposal, £30,750 by d isposal ofadvowsons and £ 16,000 through the sale o f sha res and exchequer bills. All capital subsequently raised was, wi th one minor exception , in the form of loans. By 185 1, £92,000 had been raised at interest ra tes of 4%, 4!% a nd 5%. 10 Most of this represented investment by private individua ls or loans by councillo rs. All the loans were floated with part icular projects in mind. Among these, prio rity was given to repayment of the outstanding portion of the 183 1 riot compensation debt, redemption of the o ld Corporation 's debts, and settlement of the charity d ispute. From the mid-1 840's, the rebuilding of the Bridewell a nd G uildha ll , the public health works and improve­ments, and the docks, a ll had to be financed . Normally, over £50,000 was received a nnually from a ll sources, and after an anxious begin­ning and fea rs about liquidity, the Council was little beset by worries about income. Its credit with investors was sound , and it was usually a ble to reckon on 95% of the ra te struck actually coming to hand.

During the first sixteen years, the Council spent over half-a-million pounds apart from that which went on capita l expenditure, 1 1

a nd there was a gradua l but steady increase in annua l out lay. On average, £30,78 1 was spent in the fi rst seven years and £36,93 1 in the second seven. The percentages of tota l income devoted to various purposes are shown in the accompanying ta ble.

PRI NCIPAL AN NUA L AVERAGE SOURCES OF NET EXPEND ITU RE 1836- 185 !1 2

Po lice Officers' Sala ries Gaols Ordinaries 13

City improvements Extraordinaries 14

(in percentages)

Interest payments (omitting port improvements)

Council buildings Mayor Pensioners Sessions prosecutions (unti l 1848) Swivel Bridge

39·5 16·5 12·5 7·5 4·5 3

2·75 2·5 2 2 0·75 0·75

0 See G . W. A. Bush, op. cit., a pp. 13, pp. 685-686 for a detailed table. 1°Calculated from Bond Books 2 1739-1 845 and 3 1846-. ''Calcula ted from ann ual stock balances in Jou rnals H 1836-1845 and I 1846-1 856. 1 2 Calculated from ibid. Smaller items were library, property tax , donations and

annuities, and special rate collecting. ' ' Included election expenses, stationery, rents, advertising, valuations, Assize

expenses, minor repairs. 14 lncluded law charges, tide machine, special surveys, fees, celebrations, Frome

expenses, mai ntenance of insane paupers.

186 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 I

If a ll the outlays on the ma intenance of law and o rder are aggre­gated , the resulting figure well exceeds 50% of total expenditure. Throughout the period studied , the relative balance of major out­goings stayed fairly stable, a part from a rising police bill a nd certain post-1 840 cha rges against the improvement account. Additional law and pa rlia mentary charges consumed only a modest I· 5% of expen­d iture, a ll the applications for legisla tion, exclud ing the 1848 Dock Act, taking only £5,000 from the borough fu nd. Another hitherto contentious expense-interest payments- was half covered by interest received.

It is very noticeable tha t a t the most only 3% was devoted to o ther than stric tly defined public services. In this category came donat ions, pensions, celebrations a nd a po rtion of the mayoral sa lary. Celebrations and fest ivit ies cost next to nothing- £570 in sixteen years, of which £328 was fo r pera mbulating the City boun­daries. Most ceremonial offices had been abo lished and there was no justification for criticizing the a mount of between £9,000 a nd £ I 0,000 a year paid to those empl oyed by the Counci l. Even the stric test advocate of purely ut ilita ria n, municipa l spending would have found little to a ttack.

Two distinct types of capita l outlay figure in the Council's books.• 5

O ne involved a large but luckily finite sum and arose from assuming the obligations of the o ld Corpora tion. The second type represented expenditure o riginat ing from the Council itself. By 1843 nearly £ 174,000 had been expended on meeting debts incurred by the Cor­po ration, sa tisfying the ho lders o f £90,000 worth of bonds, rebuild­ing the Bridewell a nd settling the chari ty dispute. When this burden was lifted , capita l expenditure thereafter was a pplied almost tota lly to positi ve improvements- a swivel bridge, the G uild hall , the Exchange market, public baths and wash houses (a ll new), st reet widening, and after 1848, dock repairs. These desira ble projects cost £90,000, the most expensive being improvements (£29,000) and the docks (£30,000).

O nce the o ld Corporation 's debt had been redeemed , the Counci l found tha t the power to levy a n unlimited borough rate was a panacea fo r financial ills. As the fo llowing table indicates, by 1841 the bonded debts had to a ll practical purposes been repaid.

BON D ED AN D OTH E R D EBTS OF TH E COUNCIL 1836-1 85 116

1836 £89,299 1837 74,619 1838 72,619 1839 27,390

' s See G. W. A. Bush, op. cit. , a pp. 13, pp. 685-686 for details. 1°Calculated from Journals H 1836- 1845 and I 1846-1856. Debts incurred in

connection with the docks and improvements appeared in quite cparatc accounts.

The Financial System

1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 185 1

22,485 3,275 3,275 7,275 7,275

17,895 22,745 22,045 21,345 24,045 26,770 25,720

187

Furthermore, the charity dispute was soon to be settled to the pecuniary advantage of the borough fund , and the estates, although considerably reduced , were still producing substantial revenue. With better prospects in train, the Council felt confident enough to enter into further borrowing. Yet in the final analysis, the guarantor was the rate. lt provided security for loans and as the following table shows, it virtua lly assured an annual opera ting surplus, as long as no substantial unforeseen expenditure occurred, a nd the proportion of the ra te collected was up to standard.

GROSS A ND ET REVE UE A D EX PEND ITU R E 1836-5 117

Revenue Expenditure Year Net Gross Net Gross Ne/ Balance

1836 £6.299 £13,688 £10,744 £ 17,372 Dbt. £4.345 1837 16,630 18,243 28,17 1 29,580 Dbt. 11.451 1838 36.231 42,248 30, 162 40,989 Cr. 6,069 1839 36,04 1 45,876 30,602 40,966 Cr. 5,439 1840 34,135 38,508 3 1.582 37.279 Cr. 2,553 184 1 3 1,698 38,094 32,623 39,067 Dbt. 925 1842 32,90 1 36,989 30,804 53,822 Cr. 2,097 1843 34,468 39,188 31.496 37. 105 Cr. 2,972 1844 32,556 36.449 33.3 15 38, 174 Dbt. 759 1845 35.0 17 39,57 1 32.990 39.094 Cr. 2.027 1846 41 ,152 45,936 34.960 40.007 Cr. 6. 192 1847 39,276 44.484 39.705 46. 121 Dbt. 429 1848 44.206 50.92 1 39,292 46,364 Cr. 4,9 14 1849 39.3 18 46,522 34,995 43,047 Cr. 4,323 1850 40.065 48.323 41 .345 50.084 Dbt. 1.280 1851 41 ,746 50.698 38,850 48.534 Cr. 2.896 ---

Ordinary net inco me exceeded ordinary net expenditure by an average of £2,400 in the years examined. The excess met interest

' ' et figures taken from annua l stock balances in ibid ., with certa in ded uctions made for inclusion of capital items. Gross figures taken from the Abs/rac /s of Treasurer's Accoums. An a ttempt has been made to eliminate all capital items.

188 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

charges and made it possible to advance the repayment of some of the more mature loans. 18 Money became more readily available from the Public Works Loans Commissioners and it was easier to persuade investors to finance projects which did not qualify for G overnment advances. As long as ultra vires or fl agrantly extravagant projects were avoided, the Council was reasonably assured tha t the necessary funds would be forthcoming. By judicious recourse to ra tes and loans, it could raise income to fin ance approved schemes. Although householders were now faced with rela tively high ra tes, 19 the advent of a milita nt Ratepayers' Associat ion obsessed by economy lay in the future.

From the time the Council assumed a more even financia l keel in 1841 , the fina ncial aspect of its history is comparat ively prosaic. Sta tutes a nd the new supervision by central Government constrained it from embarking on unorthodox fina ncing. Individua lity in this sphere of municipal activity, especia lly in the nature of revenue, expenditure and accounting practice, gradually vanished . This is not to assert that the Council did not have to in vestiga te the costs of proposed schemes, o r that debates on the fi nancia l situa tion were no longer necessa ry. What it did mean was that a mbitious but justified projects were now less jeopardized by uncertainties over whether capita l could be raised. Of course, a ceiling on expendi ture always existed, as the debate in the la te 1840's over the rela tive prio rities of the docks and improvements proved, but after 1840 the intrinsic merits of any proposal were given much greater weigh t a nd the cost was not the predominant factor in the decision about whether o r not to proceed.

18 E.g. , A £2.000 improvement lo an and a £4.000 cha rity settlement loan , con­t racted in 1842, were both clea red in 1847.

10 Infra. p. 210.

C H A PTE R ELEVEN

TH E NE W S Y ST E M R E VI EW E D

In judging the perfo rma nce of the Council , a range of criteria can be applied. The 1835 Municipal Corpora tions Act a nd the record of other councils make convenient yardsticks. The dema nds voiced by the citizens a nd the verd icts they passed a re also very relevant. What judgments ought to be passed on the work of the Council, bearing in mind tha t this must take into account the views generally prevailing a t the time?

First o f a ll, we will consider the debi t side. Very broadly, the Council was conservative a nd traditiona l, do ing its duty but no t read ily venturing into new fields. Two examples will serve to illustra te the po int, one of them rela ting to a ma tter of prime importance, the o ther o f no g reat significa nce in itself, but nevertheless showing how unprogressive the Council could be. The first concerned the po rt. Although the Council was busy trying to encourage the return of trade, it was very relucta nt to take over the po rt itself. In 1839 and 1845 it resisted pressure to do so, blinded by no tions of false economy. Even in 1847 a section of the Council preferred to sub­sidize the po rt's opera tion in return for the Dock Company lowering its dues. The 1848 campa ign to tra nsfer the po rt was not instigated by the Council. It needed a crisis which compelled it to act , a nd even after municipaliza tion was an accomplished fact, the Council made sure that the cost o f cutting the dues and upgrading po rt installa tions were bo rne only lightly by the merchants using the po rt. The second example rela ted to the d iscrepa ncy between the two official records of time in Bristo l. The introduction of the railways and the electric telegraph made it highly inconvenient no t to have a standard , agreed time kept, but as la te as 185 1 the Council refused to have the town clock advanced to confo rm with Greenwich Mea n T ime. 1

Perha ps because it gave primacy to the po rt a nd trade, the Council's achievements in o ther fields were limited . It would have nothing to do with municipal trading, although Robert Bright in 1845 drew its a ttention to the prospective profits awaiting those who were awarded the right to opera te these utilities. 2 Manchester made enough out of gas to finance a takeover of the water supply, which

1 P.C. (6), 12 March 185 1. pp. 453-454. 2 Mercury, 20 ovember 1845, p. 8.

190 Bristol and its Municipal Go1•emment 1820-1851

Itself became very lucrative. Yet in 1846 the Bristol Council, solicit­ous of the welfare of two private compames, refused even to investi­gate the possibility of its manufacturing gas. 1 With water, there was until 1845 not even an elementary house-~upply. When the proposi­tion of a municipal water supply was belatedly debated. 4 a mixture of extraneous loyalties and pecuniary interest biased councillors· judgment as to whether this was a legitimate sphere of public business. Over the exclusion of citizens from the Library, which made Bristol the only large city without this facility, 5 the Council behaved in a disgracefully inept fashion. Furthermore, it took fifteen years, two highly critical independent reports and a cholera epidemic. as well as browbeating by the Bristol Association for Public Health to make the Council appreciate that the sanitary organization of the City was abysmally and dangerously wanting, and that the Council had a duty to remedy the situation. Admitledly, in this field Bristol was only one of a crowd of slow-moving councils. Until the stimulus of the 1848 Act, only t-wenty-nine councils in the 187 incorporated towns had assumed direction of public health. 6 A like interval elapsed before the necessary amenities of public baths and wash houses were built. Birmmgham's Council bravely undertook to oversee its local asylum. but there was some excuse for the Bristol Council avoiding this responsibility until it was compelled to do so by statute. 7 Over improvements the Council graduated from inaction to "stop go ... Bold, visionary schemes were welcomed, then subor­dinated to the dock transfer and demands of the ratepayers for economy. Thus the on ly time future needs were comprehensively considered, the ensuing scheme was first deferred, then pared down and finally allowed in part to perish.

Yet if Bristol was not to the fore, it was not a notable straggler. In company with cities such as Swansea. Birmingham, Leicester and Southampton, it pursued an unadventurous rather than a reac­tionary policy. As A sa Briggs remarked. "Victorian cities were places -where problems often overwhelmed people".x and Bristol was no exception. If the Council gave the top prionty to the re"ival of the port. this -was quite understandable. Men who hved by investment and trade naturally carried such an outlook into the Council House. Unli ke Manchester and Liverpool, Bnstol did not possess a large. acce sible revenue jndependent of the rates. Moreover, the income from rates inevitably lagged behind the real wealth derived from industry and commerce. Although the yield from local rates rose from £58.000 in 1840 to over£ I 00.000 at the end of the decade. they did not offer any opportunity for indulging in ambitious projects. In

'P.C. (5). 3 Jul y I X46. p. 314. • 1h1d., 7 April IS46. pp. 2X9-290. 'Journal. 8 Sepiemher I S3H. p. 2. 0 11. J. La!>ki. el al .. A Ceiiiii/T u.f \lwuupal l'rogre.\.1. p. 41 " J- or funhcr !>CC Elizaheih Ralph. (,o,£'flllll<'lll of Bri.llol/373-1973 (Corporation

of Bnsiol. [ 1973]). p. 39. ' \\a Bnggs. 1/u: Ag<' of/mpmr£'111<'111 (London. l'l'\9). p 21

The New System Reviewed 191

this, Bristol was in line with most English towns, for by 1850 only sixteen had municipalized water and only nine were responsible for gas supply. 9

Although by 1843 only eight members of the old Corporation still retained seats, the new Council was still influenced by the tradi­tions of its predecessor. General opinion at the national level was that reform would check misspending and introduce an element of improvement, but few contemporaries had expected it to lead to an expansion of municipal functions. As G. M. Trevelyan remarked:

Few would have prophesied in 1835 tha t the ed ucation of the people wou ld one day be carried on by these new bodies, or that they would become traders and employers of labour on a great scale.' 0

Within its accepted sphere, the Cou ncil usuall y acted with proper concern and bu inesslike efficiency. City and country property was "farmed" to the best advantage, the port was put on proper footi ng, and an effective police force was set up. Finances were put on an even keel and pa t misdeeds forgotten. When Bristol was in the throes of changeover in 1835, the most articulate critic of the Corporation commented that the incoming civic regime would only be as good a the electors· motives.'' It was as well that party and deference to influence proved to be more important fac tors in the selection of councillors than were revenge or infatua tion with economy and retrenchment. The advent of the "shopocracy" in Bristol could have retarded development for a prolonged spell, but the dominant mer­chants and manufacturers applied to municipal affairs their business approach iligence, careful calculation of costs, mature considera­tion and a will ingness to spend heavily if the return seemed com­mensurate. Perhaps thei r most splendid achievement was the restoration of confidence. The interests of the general public and the Council now converged, allowing responsible behaviour to be taken for granted. That the ratepayers submitted to the borough rate without an epidemic of complaints indicates that in their minds money was not bei ng needlessly gat hered or wastefully spent. Bristol was no paragon, but when the Council declared that it had discharged its duties with integrity to the City's advantage, its con cience was clear.

Many political scientists, especially Americans, have been fasci­nated by the problems of why different councils behaved in such diverse ways, and why some were so eager to undertake particular tasks and others so anxious to avoid them. Temple Pa tterson attributed the limited scope of the Council a t Southampton to a

" Hcrman Finer, MtmiCijwl Trading (London. 1941 ). p. 41 and p. 46. 10 G. M. Trcvclyan. Brilislt His wry in lite Nineleellllt Ce/1/ury ( 1782-190 I ) (London,

1928). p. 245. 11 J . B. K ington. A Burgess·.\ Le11er.s. Municipal Reform section. p. 4.

192 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

laisse::.-faire philosophy, the survival o f numero us ad hoc bodies a nd to party rivalry. 12 In so far as English town s are concerned a fter 1835, there is no simple explanati on of varia tions in policy. Social, po litical , histo rical, fi scal, legisla tive, a nd even psycho­logical factors a ll p layed a part.

In a ll cases, the starting point is what was required by statute. By general law the Council was compelled to perform certain func­tions, to conduct its business under so me constraints, and to ensure that its governing body was returned as was prescribed. The reformed Council was to be selected by a nd from the burgesses to whom it was a nswerable; it was to govern the actual city of Bri sto l and no t just its central core; it was to exist for that c ity's benefit, not fo r some extraneous ends. By the Act, the Council was decreed to be the general governing body of the borough.

In practice the legislation was extremely cautious in defining what the Council could do. At first this included o nly the police, and in certain cases, lighting. Addi tio na lly, there were important per­missive or transferable powers. Bristol's Council was stripped of its contro l over charities, criminal justice and the gaols. In fact, it lost some of the responsibilities bo rne by the o ld Corpora ti on, and was to some extent like Birmingham where, unti l 185 1, the general governing body was a lmost devoid of functions.

The Municipal Corpora tions Act im posed only limited obliga­tions, and the idea that certai n activit ies were ultra vires unless sanctioned by genera l o r local legisla tio n, 13 discouraged unorthodox ideas for raising civic standards and morale. The Act aimed merely a t establishing a uniform structure and representative system in o rder to curb fina ncia l abuses and to ensure the maintenance of law and order. Nevertheless, it did ma ke the councils the chief autho rity in their boro ughs. Unlike the ad hoc bodies, they alone could levy a n unlimited general rate a nd pass by-laws as they saw fi t for the good o rder a nd government of the area. They were the obvio us bodies in which the centra l government could invest new or trans­ferred powers.

Much depended on how the reformed counci ls saw their roles, not o nly with regard to the exercise of permissive powers given to them, but in creating a climate of opinio n in which municipal pro­gress would be expected or even demanded . How did the Bristol Council face this new situatio n?

In some respects it did a good job. It was upright; it got rid of the impediments left by the unreformed Corporation; it recognized that po pula r wishes could no t be fl o uted ; it disavowed secrecy; it concerned itself with Bristol's rela tive decline as a port, and it spoke o n beha lf of the City. The police, the estates and, after 1848, the docks, were capably hand led.

' ' A . Temple Patterson. A History of Southampton, Vol. 11 . p. 27. 13 For the development of general Acts a pplying to local authorities. see H. J .

Laski. et al. , op. cit.. pp. 401 -4 11.

The New System Reviewed 193

But were economy, prudence a nd efficiency all that was required? Plunged as it was stra ight into the deep end after 1835, the Council thereafter never had the leisure necessary for reflection . There was no time to consider principles o r theories. Econo my, legality a nd cost-efficiency were useful mechanical guides, but they were no sub­sti tute for a soundly-constructed policy. The tortuous path which the Council fo llowed in connectio n with the revol utionary proposals fo r improvements in the 1840's are evidence of this. Such no tio ns may help to explain why the Council was reluctant to bring in innova­tions and adopt a progressive policy.

Prevailing a ttitudes o f economic individualism were incompatible with the idea that progress was dependent upon the submergence of separate interests. In local government, municipal "good works" often had the effect of curtailing the rights of individuals to act as they chose. As did many o ther Councils at the time, Bristol chose to act as a steward rather tha n an innovator. Whether this was due primarily to the influence of the past o r to the current state of Bristol itself must remain speculatio n. Perhaps the work which is being done on the history of Bristol in the nineteenth cen tury 14 will help in deciding wha t part such factors played in charting the Council's course.

It is possible to be mo re definite in explaining the relationship between the Council's perfo rmance and the political parties. The policies which took shape were to some extent the result o f diver­gencies between the parties, particularly in the early stages. This was not due to sheer perversity o r a desire to gain pa rty advantage, but it led to strained feelings and inhibited quite serio usly the work of the Council. The Liberals, like their fellow councillors in Liverpool, were obsessed with economy and they determined to root out waste and extravagance in a ll its forms. They singled out feasts, onerous interest payments, "frivolous a nd vexatio us law suits" and officers who performed no useful function. In 1836 they even tried- with­out ava il- to have the office of Lord High Steward abolished .' 5 If ten pounds could be saved from an officer's salary without his resigning, o r wi tho ut dissuading suitable successors fro m applying, this then was extolled as commo n sense. 16 Processions, officia l church attendances by the Council and o ther venerable ceremo nies were frowned upo n as unnecessary a nd as using reso urces required for other purposes. C hallenged to sign the pledge of "econo my with justice", the Conservati ves had little choice but to agree, whatever their fo ndness for the o ld regime. However, they were o n the whole less niggardly than the Liberals about salary rises, a nd with their reverence for tradition, they were loathe to a bolish all ceremonial.

1 4 The subject is be ing e xamined by Dr. Brian Atkinson. 1 ! P.C. ( I), 5 February 1836, p. 39. 16 Sec for example, the ca se o f the deputy registrar of the Court of Conscience

in 1844 (Ga:elle, 4 January 1844. p. 3).

194 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

evertheless, once the bitterness of the early yea rs had vanished , there was in the main tacit agreemen t a nd this was partly the cause of the failure to underta ke new functions.

Liberals right ly in sisted tha t the Council should no t promote factiona l, po litical o r religious causes and should consider a ll questions from a strictly commercial or municipal point o f view. The Conservat ives realized that the Council was an unsuitable vehicle for advancing pa rty fortunes. O n denominati onal issues they sti ll harboured a desire to aid the Establ ished Church. Over the related issues of land grants to the Di senters' church a t Hinton and the Anglica n Church at the Ropewalk, the Council sca rcely acted on a stric tly disinterested basis. Even so, few opportunities no rmally arose for partiality without tra nsgressing the bounds of legal ity. Thus over neither religion nor politics could the Council be indicted for improper behaviour.

Polit ica l differences gradually mellowed as the Liberals adj usted themselves to the system a nd accepted their status as a permanent minority.• 7 One result was that divisions wi thin the Council came to cross party lines. The innovato rs and idealists usually found themselves outnumbered by those who emphasized a mixt ure of the status quo a nd economy. Thus, on all the centra l issues of the 1840's-cha rity settlement, po lice ma nagement , street improve­ments, dock transfer and public health- the majorities in each party were united. This bipa rtisanship was ra rely endangered by demands to accord the in terest of the pa rty the highest priority.

There is a strong case for saying that the Council's outlook was conditioned principally by the state of its finances. Although un­avoidable outlay on the po lice a nd in settling inherited debts made economy essential, it was no t carried to extremes. After 1837 Council possessed a theoretically inexhaustible source of fu nds, na mely the borough a nd special ra tes. o longer was there the humiliat ion of chronic overdra fts. In this more hea lthy situation the Council a llowed the general ra te to rise slowly but steadi ly from £ 18,579 in 1837 to £25,000 in 185 1. Almost nobody was a larmed by the annual average increase of 2}0

o that these figures represented . On occasions, the Council undertook costly projects and was no t

afraid to borrow heavi ly. For example, it had raised loa ns of £29,000 for improvements. Unlike the ma nagement boa rd in Park inson 's Lmr, it did no t spend endless time over trifles while paying only cursory attention to expensive projects. The debt was kept under close contro l and a ll expenditure was strictly scrutinized and kept below income. Criticism from ratepayers was effectively foresta lled. The following table 18 shows the comparative expenditure of three leading towns for the year ending 3 1 August 1849:

1 ·Supra. pp. 143-1 46. 18 lnformation in the first three columns extracted from P.P. (A ccounts & Papers.

Vol. 17). 1!!50 (388 ). XLIX. pp. 5 1-52.

The New System Revie 11•ed 195

01her Expendi- Expend. 185 1 Ra1e Receip1s tu re per head Popn.

Bristo l £2 1. 198 (25,322 £46,647 6s. IOd. 137.328 Birmingham 24, 170 32.866 70.235 6s. Od . 232,84 1 Liverpool 0 337.308 290,074 15s. 5d. 375.955

Thus although the handso me income enjoyed by Liverpool per­mitted it lavi h expenditure, Bristol's Council was no t obsessed by no tions of frugality. It followed the principle currently known as " incremental budgeting" , using each preceding year's budget as the basis. As there was no a rbitrary ceiling imposed on income, the Council could no t really plead as a ma tter o f ha bit that " insuf­ficient fund s were availa ble" .

o expla nation of the Council's perfo rmance can igno re the po liti ­cians and administra to rs who comprised it. In Bri stol there was a high proportion of middle-aged, wealthy Anglicans. They owed their position no t to the electo ra te but to the ruling elite within the pa rty which nominated them. Since few seats changed their po litical loya lty a t elections, selection of the officia l candida tes was tan tamount to choosing the councill ors. In the eighteen-fo rties the Conservative majority was embarrassingly large and inevita bly men of li ttle a bility won seats. By 1842 there were complaints about the ca libre o f members, and it was alleged that the more a nonentity a prospective candidate was, the better his chances of obta ining a seat. 19 The press began to express concern abo ut the a mount of " useless muni­cipal lumber" . 20

Emergence of a "municipal cabinet" was only to be expected in such an institut ion. If the criteria o f frequency and force of peeches and committee appointments a re a pplied , it appears tha t some dozen or so councillo rs usually dominated proceedings, a t least those conducted in public. At first they were exclusively Conserva tive, but following the Liberal eclipse, three o r four ve teran Liberal councillors were "eo-opted" into the "cabinet". In 185 1, a ll the influential posts were evidently monopolized by this privileged group. 2 1 Daniel sur­rendered his leadership of the T ories in 1836 a nd therea fter they reverted to the practice of group rule, no twithstanding the domin ­ance exercised by Haberfield, who was mayor four times between 1846 and 1851.

The Mayor was always a sta nding member of the "cabinet", and was chosen by ro tation from a mong the leading Conserva tives unti l the supply of those willing to bear the cost a nd sacrifice dried up. Evidence about what real power the Ma yor wielded and his ability

19 Journal. 13 August 1842. p. 3. 20 See Mercury. 22 Oc tober 1842. p. 8. 2 • Ga:elle. 16 October 185 1. p. 5.

196 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

to impose his imprint on decisio ns is scanty. 22 He was una ble to retain his office for a second term if this eventuality clashed with majority opinion, and former mayors were not automatically assured o f being treated as elder sta tesmen. Quite probably the group of ' 'mayor-makers" exercised mo re sway than did the men they chose, but they did no t terrorize or dic tate, even in a genteel fashion. There was no conscious collusion to fois t views o n a complaisant mass of counci llors: rather, by their superior diligence, ability and persuasiveness they came to form the Council's core, without which much less would have been accomplished .

Councillo rs were in the main Bristol's business, political, social and religious leaders. They were councillo rs because they were leaders, ra ther than vice versa. One elderly Bristo lian contrasted them favourably with councill ors of a later e ra:

Then [ 1835] a nd for many years afterwards the Council was composed, far more than it now [ 1893] is of men of standing and positio n. The march of democracy has of la te resulted in the election of too many men of a lower class, igno rant and na rrow­minded, acting in "penny-wise a nd pound-foolish principles". 23

Bristo l thus deviated fro m the national pattern whereby the pre­dominantly Anglican members o f unreformed corpora tions were replaced by a mass o f "solid, on the who le onconformist, pros­perous merchants and traders". 2 4 Histo ria ns may well be correct in writing that the changeover brought

a real revolution in the socia l background of govern men t, much mo re complete than anything which the Refo rm Bill had achieved in the membership of the House of Commons25

but Bristo l was an outstanding exception . Only o ne of the twenty-one o utgoing members of the Corporation who sought a seat in 1835 was rebuffed by the electors. Not o nly did the " remnants o f the old o ligarchy" emerge unscathed , but they were able to stay on the Council as long as they wished. Of course, the quasi-hereditary "aristocracy" had to relinquish thei r mo nopoly of power, but it was no t supplanted by small property-owners whose sole object was to peg the rates. The floodgates of social revoluti on had not yet burst open in Bristol.

There were, of course, some new elements in the Council. The overwhelming difference between the old and the new type o f coun-

" Supra. pp. 126- 127. 23 William Sturge. S ome Recollecrions of a Long Life (Private circulation. 1893).

p. 17. 24 SiJney Webb, "'The Evo lutio n of Loca l Government"", p. 22 (a lecture series

delivered at the London Schoo l of Economics. 1899; re printed in the Municipal Journal. 1951 ).

" G . K itson Clark . The M aking of Vicrorian EnJ~Iand( London . 1962). p. 161.

The New System Reviewed 197

cillor was not in the socio-economic background but in the more responsible attitude the new councillors took towards municipal affairs. Primarily, they offered themselves not for party ends or because they craved the limelight, but because they firmly believed that the Council could have a significant influence on Bristol's well-being. The workload was substantial, as leading members could anticipate two committee meetings a week, and often family and personal commitments had to be sacrificed. It was written of John Shaw, a Conservative councillor for over two decades, that "he spent an immense amount of time on public business, to the prejudice of his own business, which fell away". 26 Refusal to serve when elected was almost unknown, and absentee nominal members were virtually a thing of the past only 15" 0 had an attendance record of less than 15" 0 . In return for their services, councillors received no profit and only the occasional festivity an·d free dinner. They enjoyed a modest prestige and some influence, but on the other hand they had to work hard and take unpopular decisions which neces­sitated "a thick skin and a great sense of duty". 2 7

There were some black sheep. William Taunton, a Liberal barris­ter, who missed thirty-seven out of forty-one meetings, wa~ without a peer, but there were 15" 0 of members who were never appointed to a single committee during their term of office, pos ibly because a silent member was no asset. The Mercury was perturbed in 1842 about the number of councillors who were merely partisans, seeking the honour of membership but not prepared to undertake the duties. 28 There was little evident change, for in 1851 the Ga:ette alleged that although many councillors had served for long periods, the majority were "utterly ignorant" of municipal affairs. 2 Q But the importance of this group should not be over-estimated. it probably numbered only six to eight at any one time, and in any large insti­tution there are bound to be seat-warmers as well as exemplary members like William Fripp and George Thomas. The party hacks and the time-servers were too few to impair the work of the Council in any real way.

Then as now the performance of the Council was closely related to the calibre of its senior officers. Evidence about the senior officers who served in the period 1836-1851 is limited, but Ludlow and Claxton do not seem to have been typical, 30 and for the most part the officers rendered loyal and competent service. Employment in a senior post was regarded as a lifelong pursuit, and men such as Garrard, the Treasurer, Burges, the Town Clerk, and his colleague Brice, were indispensable to the efficient conduct of bu iness. o

26 A B. 1-recman, Bristol Wonirw.1. p. 67. 2 ' E. P. llcnnock, .. Finance and Politics in Urban Local Government 111 England

1835-1900 ... The 1/istorica/ Journal, Vol. Vi. No. 2. 1963. p. 204. 2" Merwrr, 22 October 1842. r !!. 20 Ga:e11e. 16 October 1851. r 8 1° Supra. pp. 136-13!1.

198 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

longer were posts filled by deputy or proxy, or exploited as a part­time perquisite. Higher salaries militated against such practices. It seems that the staff, apart from the occasional contretemps, executed competently the Council's instructions. This impression harmonizes well with the overall image of the Council , though at this remove it is impossible to be dogmatic a bout whether the officers in general represented a progressive influence.

It is far from easy to assess the influence of press and public opinion on Council. All that can be done is to document the attitude of the press and draw a few conclusions. Originally the press was notori­ously partisan, with the Liberal papers, the Mercury a nd the Gazette, already incensed over the aldermanic selection and indig­nant that the enemies of reform had , by devious and fraudulent means, seized control of the Council. Their Conservative counter­parts, the Journal, Mirror and the Bristol Times, reacted to events with a curious ambivalence: they endorsed Council's policy and re­butted charges of political bias, but were prone to contrast less agree­able features---economy, rates, the wrangle over the Charit ies- with " the good old da ys" of the Corporation, conveniently glossing over its neglect of Bristol's welfare. Once party rancour subsided, the press was usually a constructive critic, while reserving the right to dissent on specific schemes such as the transfer of the docks o r the aboli­tion of the Paving Commissioners. By today's standard, Council meetings were lavishly covered, often in semi-verbatim style, which could spread over four or five small-typeface columns. But only a tiny section of the citizens purchased papers- in the mid-1 840's the combined circulation of these weekly papers was around 10,000. 3 1

One cannot discover any instance of where press advocacy of a cause such as public access to the library, the continuation of fairs, o r the municipalizat ion of water supply, persuaded the Council to follow the exhortations of the press if it was no t so inclined.

One useful role of the press was that it showed refreshingl y little inhibition about criticizing personalities. Thus, the Mercury in 1843 commented on one Council meeting:

The Conservative portion of the council distinguished themselves by the great force and ability wi th which they roared "oh! oh!" This exhibition of congenial eloquence encouraged Mr Charles Blisset [a wealthy young Conservative from Clifton] ... to shine fo rth in his own peculiar way, ... by blurting out one or two uncalled for impertinences. Considering the number of cheap pub­lications issued for the instruction of youth, M r Blisset ought really to lay out a shilling or eighteen pence with a view to the im­provement of his manners. 32

3 1 In 1841 477.250 stamps were issued to the four principal Bristol papers (Mercury. 252.000: Mirror. 132.050; Journa/63.200; Ga:ette 30,000). By comparison the three Sheffield papers purchased 261 ,500 stamps (Report from the Select Com­mittee on Ne11·spaper S tamps. p. 544, H.C.. 185 1 (558), XV II ).

32 Mercury. 4 Ja nuary 1845. p . 8.

The Nell' System Reviewed 199

Probably the most valuable kind o f article was the publication of occasional, general, reflective reviews of the Council's purpose and efficiency. Thus, in the languid 1840's, the Bristol Times alleged that " the Council are becoming effete, and doing nothing worthy of the municipal government of a grea t c ity". 33 The ·'prevalent lethargy" was blamed by the Gazette on a lack of popular interest in municipal elections and affairs. 34 Four years later in 1848, the Mirror somewhat unfairl y compared the councils of Liverpool a nd Bristol and looked forward eagerly to the day when the office of counci llor would become of "'much greater labour, responsibi lity, and, consequently, honour than a t present" .35 The radically-inclined Mercury called for action, a widening o f vision, a nd escape from the prison of '"merely directing the management a nd payment of money". Liberals were adamant that religion and politics were taboo in the Council C hamber, and so the Mercury's suggestion tha t church ra tes, protection of voters and extension of the suffrage were appro­priate subjects for the municipal agenda 36 was rather disingenuous. On the whole, press attacks were isolated a nd fit ful. The newspapers apparently found little remiss in the Council's general stra tegy and certainly over the major issues o f the 1840's they were sympathetic ra ther than hostile.

Did public o pinio n in these formative years help or hinder the Council 's plans? With one notable exception, what are now called community-action gro ups did not manifest themselves. This was principally because the rela tio nship between the citizens a nd the Council underwent a dramatic transformation. It was felt that the Council was working for and not against Bristol's interests, that citizens could express grievances to their ward representa tives a nd through them to Council , that dissent now had a n o utlet in the Council itself. Grosser forms of misspending and maladministration were now precluded. and public opinion could express itself a t the annual electio ns. In exa mining the place of public opinio n, however, it must not be forgo tten that the opportunity to influence directly the Council's policy d id not extend beyond the few thousand inhabi­tants who paid the ra tes or exercised the franchise. Thu s, exaggera­tion must be guarded against in depicting the situation as o ne o f continual and close contact between the municipal body and the people.

Most of the sniping at the Council in the ini tia l period was organized by the Liberal Association. This body was behind the quo ll'arranto action in 1836 over Fripp's eligibility as a councillor, it being asserted that his qualification as a director of the Bristol Life Insura nce Office was invalid, as he neither occupied nor paid ra tes on the premises in questio n. It was not clear whether the mo tivation

33 Bristol Times, quoted in Ga:elle. 24 October 1844. p. 3. 3 4 Ga:ette, 6 ovcmber 1844. p. 3. 35 Mirror, 13 May 1848. p. 3. 36 Mercury. 5 February 1848, p. 3.

200 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

was pa rty spite, persona l enmity o r the professed desire to clarify a legal doubt. The Libera l Associa tio n won its case, but as judgment was no t delivered until after Fripp's term had expired , it was o nly a ho llow victo ry. 37 After the 1835 electio n, the Liberal Associa tion whipped up public feeling, petitio ned for red ress over e lectoral in­equities a nd urged ano ther, mo re radical measure of municipa l reform, incl uding the abolition o f a ldermen and the in trod uction o f the secret ballo t. 3 8 A ltho ugh the pe titio n was unheeded , the Conservatives were no t entirely a t ease, and when Lo rd Melbo urne, in the context o f a debate o n Irish municipal reform, mentio ned that Bristo l had enjoyed many benefits fro m the o peration o f the 1835 Act , a reactio n occurred . Local Conserva tives presented a peti­tion arguing that, despite Conservat ive contro l of the Council , such a claim was baseless. O ne result was a n ironical inversio n of roles, with the Liberals defending the Conservat ive Town Council and calling on the public to bear witness to the benefi ts fl owing fro m the new system.39 The resulting public meeting duly passed resolu­tio ns to this effect , but it was mo re impo rtant for ano ther reason: it was the last partisan public ga thering on contentious municipal matters in the period being stud ied .

An example fro m the ta il -end of this rancoro us era was The Bristol M unicipal Annual for 1838, scurrilo usly penned by a diehard "No Pa rty Man" who did no t seem worried abo ut libel. Extremely unfla ttering biographical ske tches o f unna med but recognizable Libera l councillo rs were in termingled with adula tory portraits of prominent Conserva tives. Of Willia m Hera path it was said tha t:

Whilst leader of a gang o f seditio us paupers, this man rejoiced in the title o f a straight forward Radical- He is a real coward, and a low tearing dissenter.

J a mes W ood , a conscientio us respected Libera l was viciously maligned:

He preaches pie ty and good will a mo ngst men and then- roars like a bull , and foa ms a t the mouth, if things go against him . You may trace the course of a snail by its slime.

About Jo hn Dra ke, a councill or-magistra te, the work was eq ua lly cutting:

He is in "the scrape"; igno rant as a horse, and he deserves to be horse-whipped.

31 See Ga;el/e, 4 February 1836, p . 3 a nd 17 Februa ry 1836, p. 3. 3 " Ibid. , 4 February 1836, pp. 1-2. 39 See broadside entitled ··working of the Mun icipal Corporation Reform Act in

Bris tol '' in Volume of ewscu ttin gs 1747-1 864. also . Volume of Broadsides. 1789-1848; Ga:e11e. I June 1837, p. 2.

The New System Reviewed 20 I

Defamatory diatribes o f this kind were on their last legs: henceforth antagonism was directed against measures, not men o r their politics.

Discontent abated in intensity in the 1840's. Allegedly extravagant spending, o r an increase in rates, guaranteed that letters of com­plaint to the newspapers would be composed , but thei r tone was normally mild . When the Mayor's allowance was restored to £700 per annum in 1843, one irate correspondent suggested that some mechanism should be devised for consulting the ratepayers when such spending was envisaged.4 0 There were, too, numerous requests to the Council to take action, one no torious example being com­plaints over the fetid sta te of the Frome.41 The Council did not claim any right to be immune from external pressure and two incidents suggest that it was susceptible to such pressure. First, the tenacious fight put up by the Quakers resulted in the removal from the 1837 Encroachment Bill of a clause a uthorizing the upkeep of the Mayor's Chapel from the borough fund .42 On another occasion, the hostility of the ratepayers prevented the implementation of the improvement proposals made in 1845.43 Those who disapproved of the Council's work could always show their displeasure by standing at elections as independents, as happened over issues such as the transfer of the docks and public health. Those wi th ample funds could waste them in trying to thwart Bills promoted by the Council, but such means were employed by individua ls ra ther than by significant secto rs of the community.

Apart from the unstable early period, it was only over the question of a free port and the transfer of the docks to the C ity that the public shed its habi tua l indifference to municipal activities.44 The array of peti tions bearing thousands of signatures, the meteoric rise of the Free Port Association, the clamorous public meetings and the a bundant press coverage a ll indicate that more of the public were involved in this question tha n over any o ther issue, including muni­cipal reform , in the preced ing three decades. An 1847 poem, " Bristowa's Prophecy", by Francis Barham,4 5 caught the mood of longing to recreate former glo ries which had shamefull y been allowed to depart. In the final four stanzas the author ho lds the to rch a loft:

Then the spirit o f Union shall once more illume The cit ies tha t skulk in that darkness of hell , Which harsh sects and pa rties unblushing assume, As smugglers choose fogs, for their b lundering pell-mell.

Then true, honest thinkers,- those martyrs of God, Who now stand fo rsaken in silence a nd scorn,-

40 Mercury, 25 ovcmbcr 1843. p. 3. 41 P.C. (2), 19 March 1839, p. 570. Sec also P.C. (5), 15 July 1844, p. 4 (lighting

fires on ships) and P.C. (6), 8 February 1848, p. 45 (library). 4 2 Joumal, 10 June 1837. p. 2. 43 Supra, pp. 168- 169. 44 Supra, pp. l 75-176 . ., Edward Martin & Bill Pickard (cds.). 600 Years of Bristol Poetry. p. 39.

202 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

Shall speak their bold prophecies fearless a broad, And prepare all manki nd for Truth's heavenlier morn.

They shall link in one permanent, brotherl y band The best of the sons of this City of fame; And by great men, once more, shall great actions be plann'd , Not pitiful jo bberies unworthy our name.

They shall win back Free Commerce to Bristol again; ·· Free-Trade in Free-Port ' ' our bo ld motto shall be; And all men, who now of their interest complain , Shall find their best interest in just li berty.

Here was the a rticulation of a belief, a lmost religious in its fervour, that engulfed people from a ll classes of society. The Free Port Associa tion was also a model o f how a pressure group could attain its ends through official cha nnels. However, the episode was excep­tional. Most Bristo lians accepted municipal po licy, and concord between the parties on civic affairs made effective opposition very difficult. Whether this acquiescence resulted from a feeling of satis­faction, from the impossibility o f trying to influence decisions, or simply from plain inertia , cannot now be ascertained. To the Council , what ma ttered was the fact , not the underlying explanation.

This passivity enabled the Council to speak with more assura nce as the voice of Bristol , a lthough its opportunities to arrange public displays were severely curtailed . It could arrange a procession in honour of Queen Victoria 's accession defrayable from the borough fund , but the costs o f celebrating her coronation had to be met by private subscription.46 Expenditure on feasts, proces­sions and the like were now prohibited, except where higher authority permitted, and this cramped the Council's style. To their great annoy­ance, the councillors had to provide £ 142 from their pockets to fin ance civic enterta inment during the 1836 conference of the British Association in o rder to honour the commitment accepted by the Corporation.47 Even the eagerly-awaited visit of Prince Albert in July 1843 to launch the Great Britain removed only a trifling £42 from the civic purse. The brunt of the expense was borne by the proprieto rs, the Great Western Steam Ship Company. A mere £200 a year was the maximum that could be donated to .. good works' ', a nd none of this could be given to any religious cha rity. Generally speaking, Council had to be sa tisfied with processing, fo rma lly a ttending the cathedral , despatching humble addres es when each royal birth occurred, and expressing a la rm about declining trade. None of these activ' ties o ffended a ny substan tial section of the population.

In matters concerning religion, the Council had to be very careful. A few staunch Nonconformists had a rooted objection to its ta king

46 P.C. (2). 31 May 1838, pp. 369-370. 4 7 Mercury. 14 July 1836, p. 4.

The New System Reviewed 203

any side whatsoever on religion, even if it was for liberty a nd toler­ance. The vast majority had no such compunction in expressing their views, but were careful to be sufficiently catholic not to alienate moderate Nonconformists. In 1836 the proposal to abolish the see of Bristo l and unite it with Gloucester provoked a vigorous pro test from the Council about " this ret rograde step diminishing the status of the city" .48 This outburst probably was consonant with popular feeling. A few months later the Council supported a proposal to remove civil disabilities on Jews,49 because some of the leading mem­bers wanted to have severa l prominent Jewish mercha nts as fellow counci llors. All niceties of Protestant religious distinction were sub­merged over the papal decision to re-establish a Catho lic hiera rchy in 1850. A motion expressing disgust at "the a udacious endeavours of the Pope of Rome to usurp Ecclesiastical Dominion in th is Realm" 5 0 passed without dissent , although a ha ndfu l abstained. Even the Conservatives, no admirers of Lord John Russell , noted with " lively satisfaction" his " timely and constitutional declaration" about the Government's intention to resist. Both the abolition of the bishopric of Bristol a nd the restoration of the Catho lic hierarchy excited widespread indignation, and it is a fa ir assumption that over these issues the Council was in step with mass opinion.

Considering the period as a whole, the most important factors which affected the municipal task were the changing party st rengths and atti tudes. The retention of power by the Conservatives from 1835 onwards was probably to Bristol's advantage. For a time, while the Liberals still saw a chance of gaining power, they subordinated municipal to party interests. Bo th sides needed to maintain party enthusiasm at a high pitch, and in capitalizing on the opportunities to dominate both the C harity Trustees a nd the Justices of the Peace the Liberals were simply playing the same ruthless game as the Tories.

Once the Liberals rea lized that the Conservative majority was permanent and saw that the Council was not being perverted by the Conserva tives for their own purposes, the municipal atmosphere underwent a dramatic change for the better. Apart from Cunning­ham and C. B. Fripp, a ll the front-rank Liberals survived the electoral disasters at the end of the 1830's and made a notable contribution to the Council' work, especially on the major committees. 5 1 In the 1840's, wi th the tacit approval of the Conserva tives, the Liberals recovered their strength by some five or six seats. Party feeling sank to a low ebb and uncontested elections were common. As the Gazette commented in 1848:

No ho t and hasty partisans, wi th a nxiety depicted on their coun­

•• P.C. ( I), 19 March 1836, p. 92. 49 I bid .. 4 May 1836. pp. 133- 134 and supra. p. 15 1. so P.C. (6), 18 ovember 1850, p. 405. s• Supra , p. 142.

204 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

tenances, were seen rushing in frantic haste through the miry streets, no reluctant voters dragged to the poll , no cars ra ttling along with the halt, the lame, o r the blind , no bribing, bullying or bibbling, no fighting or speechifying, no bro ken heads and no damaged metaphors. 52

By 185 1 we find the curious situation of Liberals actually filling in and submitting the nomination papers of Conservatives.

In 1850, the Council was no longer split in to two conflicting factions. Even Visger, that unrepentant Radical, could talk of the "good spirit which now prevailed" a nd remark tha t in ninety-nine cases out o f a hundred, party feeling was unknown. 53 A casual observer at a Council meeting would have been hard pressed to attach pa rty labels to the members. The occasional outbursts of feeling, such as that arising from the replacement of Charity Trustees in 185 1, merely served to remind those concerned tha t municipal business was more effectively conducted when party was re legated to the background.

It must be said that the electo rate became even more placid than did the Council , where con tentious issues still prod uced meaningful debate a bout po licy and sharp divisions of opinion, albeit not on party lines. Other principles were coming to supplant those of partisanship, a nd this gave the merits of any particula r case a better opportunity of prevailing wi th the majority. Pa rty considerations were never completely banished, but they were modera ted in such a way as to a llow the pursuit of an agreed , though no t necessarily progressive policy to meet what were believed to be the needs of the city.

' 2 Ga:elle. 2 ovcmber 1848. p. 8. " Joumal, 16 ovcmber 1850. p. 3.

C H APTE R TWE L VE

TH E O LD A D TH E NE W

Unlike the booming, vibrant c ities of the North, Bristo l owed but a modes t debt to the Ind ustrial Revoluti on, a nd had " moved thro ugh the fi rst half of the century at a slower, mo re dignified pace".' This was reflected in its popula tion curve. The total o f 137,300 (6 1,62 1 males and 75,707 fema les) wh ich the 185 1 census recorded was very respectable, but the average a nnua! growth of I ,500 d uring the preceding decade represented o nly a I% yea rly gain , a nd was well exceeded by Leeds (2,000) and Sheffield (2,400), two comparable cities. There were 20,873 inhabited ho uses, 1,659 empty and 199 in the course of constr uction, 2 figures which did not suggest that the ci ty was bursting at the seams. In fact , Bristol's once cherished status as the kingdo m's second city had lo ng since been surrendered , bo th in terms o f popu la tio n, by which cri te rio n it had slumped to sixth, and in terms of trade, in which it was behind Lo ndo n, Liverpool,

ewcastle, H ull , and, dist ressing ly, Southampton.3 Differential development was still characterist ic. Population in the a ncient ci ty was steady at a bout 60,000, while in suburbs such as Clifto n it rose from 14,177 to 17,634 between 1841 a nd 185 1 a nd in St. Philip and Jacob from 21,590 to 24,96 1 in the same period. An excellent example of this fundamenta l shift in the bala nce is provided in the 185 1 valua tio n survey. 4 At that date over ha lf the 24,085 dwellings ra ted stood in a reas first incorporated by the Act of 1835, and the 2,7 18 houses assessed in Cli fton alone contributed one-fifth of the gross ra teable value o f £5 16,092. In the period between this survey and o ne cond ucted in 1836 to facili ta te striking of the fi rst ra te, Bristol's ra teable value had risen by approximately 36%, but six of the small inner parishes had no t a ltered materia lly.

Every trader a nd importer knew tha t Bristol's commerce had been in the do ldrums, rela t ively speaking. In 1850 there was a fi rm expecta­t ion tha t wi th the port's ad ministra t ion reformed , there would be

1 Patrick McGrath , .. Bris tol since 149T, Bristol and its Adjoining Coufllies, ed. C. M. Mac lnnes and W. F. Whittard (Bristol : British Association for the Advance­ment of Science. 1955), p. 2 15.

2 Census of Great Britain 1851, Pt. I, Vol. 11 , p. 112. 3 According to a Return showing fo r each year, 18 16- 1850 inclusive, the number

of vessels and their tonnage entered inwards and cleared outwards a t each of twelve principal po rts. (P.P .. (Accounts and Papers. Vol. 22) 1851 (656). Lll . p. 2 13).

4 1851 Survey o f the City: City A rchives.

206 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

a healthy resurgence, and perhaps even a reversal of her painful eclipse. There was still a foundation of traditional trading with the West Indies, Canada, South America, Ireland, Russia, the Mediter­ranean and the African coast. Lord John Russell 's imposition of a uniform sugar duty ( 1849) was hastening the demise of the sugar trade with the West lndies, but imports like timber, dye-woods, grain and fruit and exports such as metals, cotton, glass and coal were still being transhipped in bulk. Unquestionably, the po rt was the city's lifeline: each week an average of fifteen vessels discharged foreign imports a longside another ninety lighters and merchantmen engaged in the Irish and coasting trades. 5 Bristol had a nationwide reputa tion for its manufactures of sugar , tobacco and floor-cloths, but the output of metal , soap, glass, pottery, chemical and ship­building industries also made a major contribution to her gross economic product.

Bristol was first and fo remost a trading city and its connection by rail with Gloucester and the Midlands, Taunton, and London augmented its many natural advantages. Without forsaking its tradi­tional means of li velihood, it managed to reap some of the benefits accruing from the Industrial Revolution without suffering very markedly from its more unpleasan t features.

Clifton resembled Bath, but its elegant crescents and social graces were not typical of Bristol as a whole. On the basis that 55% of the dwellings were rated below£ 11 , the Public Health Report of 1850 deduced that over half the population , that is about 74,000, were artisans and labourers. 6 This is supported by statistics which showed that there was an average ratio of six people to each dwelling. This meant that in lower class districts serious overcrowding was common , since there must have been about ten people in the typical poky tenement. Since housing was so unsatisfactory, grog shops flourished. There were some 900 establi shments selling beer and spirits with an estimated annual turnover of £350,000. 7 By way of contrast, Bristol supported only 138 butchers, 130 bakers and 48 grocers.

Spiritual needs of a more orthodox variety were still being catered for on a generous scale. Mat thews 's Directory for 185 1 lists thirty-six Anglican churches, forty-three Nonconformist chapels and meeting places, five Roma n Catholic chapels and one synagogue. According to the 185 1 religious census, 8 which was based on a larger survey area than the municipa l boundaries established in 1835 , 8 1,985 persons out o f a total of 18 1,809 attended church in Bristol on 3 1 March of that year, and of these 58% went to Anglican services.

' Calculated from statistics in G. T. Clark, 1850 Public Health Report, p. 14. On Bristol's trade and economy see R. A. Buchanan and cil Cossons, The Industrial Archaeology oft he Bristol Region ( cwton Abbot, 1969), pp. 13-20 a nd A. J. Pugsley, Some comributions towards the study of the economic development of Bristol in the 18th and 19th ce/lluries (University of Bristol: M.A. Thesis. I 92 1 ).

6 G. T . Clark. 1850 Public Health Report , p. 37. • G. T . Clark, 1850 Public Health Report, p. I 56. 8 P.P. (Accounts and Papers, Vol. 33) I 852- I 853 ( I 960). LXXX IX. p. 63.

The Old and the New 207

Studies of the 185 1 religious census indicate tha t nationally church attendance was in decline, and this was probably the case in Bristol. Many of Bristol's charitable institutions, which abounded for almost every conceivable purpose, were sponsored by, o r associa ted with, churches, a nd this decline in the number of practising C hristia ns may have rekindled the determination of those involved in the work of chari ties to keep them going. Without even thinking abo ut such modern municipal obligat ions as housing and social welfare, the Council had a da unting task in providing basic physical amenities and maintaining law and o rder. 9

The former Corpora tion had acquired the power to intervene in the affairs of other authorities. Sometimes this was in the form of participation decreed by sta tute, sometimes it was made possible through common membership of the bodies concerned, a nd in one case it took the form of the right to select the personnel. With one exception- the appoin tment of Justices- the Council formed in 1835 retained all the powers possessed by its predecessor in this respect. There can be no serio us doubt that the refo rmed body was meant to be a genera l authority for Bristol. Yet paradoxicall y, although its status was greatly strengthened, for example, by the right to levy rates, the ho ld it exerted over o ther autho rities in Bristol may actua lly have decreased.

The extent to which the new Council was connected with other authorities was considerable. Every January 10 it deputed certain councillors to be Gua rdians of the Poor ( 13); Turnpike Trustees ( 43); Dock Company d irectors (9); Dock Company voting members (43); Trustees for the dock sinking fund {I); Trustees of the Catt le Market ( 15); Trustees for assessing and o rdering the rates ( 12 aldermen); Commissioners for the Court of Conscience ( 13); Governors of Temple Hospital (4); Visitors to the Lunatic Asylum (3); and Trustees of Kitchen's and Jackson 's charities ( 12). In addit ion, until the Paving Com missioners were abolished in 185 1, 1 1 the Mayor and aldermen exercised the right to select their personnel.

There is, however, very little evidence to indicate whether those appointed by the Council to other authorities played an act ive role or exercised much influence. As far as we know, the ex officio Council members did not adopt an overbearing attitude, except possibly in the affair of the Dock Company. Where Council members were no t in the majority, there is virtually no indication of any but a nomina l involvement. Certainly as regards the Guardians of the Poor a nd the Turnpike Trustees, the Council did no t seek to impose a ny policy. In the no rmal course of . vents, the Council was rarely in­volved wi th o ther public bodies.

0 6 & 7 Will. IV, c.I05, cl. VIII gave the new councils authority 10 do everything (except criminal and civil judicature) former ly done by the aldermen and corporations.

10 These charity functions were probably retained under clauses LXX II or LXX III of the M.C. Act 1835.

11 See e.g. , P.C. (2). I J;muary 1839, pp. 459-465.

208 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

The most venerable ad hoc body was the Incorporation of the Poor, which tried to keep the problems of poverty within manage­able bounds. Very quickly after 1835, the councillor-guardians started to interpret their duties as merely formal: in 1837the numbers attending seven meetings of the Guardians were respectively 7, 2, I, 5, I, I, 1.12 It is tragic that the Incorporat ion of the Poor's papers were destroyed by a bomb during World War 11 , 13 but it can be deduced from the Council's minutes that it had next to no concern with care of the poor, a part from the special case of luna tic paupers. A similar state of affairs applied to the Turnpike Trustees, perhaps in part because of the Trust' s great reputa tion. It was the second largest in the country, but only eighteen of its 163 miles of main­tained highway lay within the bo rough.14 Before the agi ta tion to adopt the Public Health Act, the Paving Commissioners were left severely alone. However, when the Council resolved to liquidate them a nd assume thei r a utho rity, it encountered stiff resista nce, 1 5 and its "board of selection" petulantly refused to include in the last list a popular, vetera n commissioner, H. W. Bucknall, who had been a trenchant critic o f the takeover.16

If any ad hoc body could make trouble fo r the Council , it was the Dock Company. T echnically, the Council was strongly placed to get its way, but in practice its position was weak . As early as 1837 several Council dock directo rs declined rea ppointment on the grounds tha t they were powerless to alter the course of events. 1 7

In 1842, John Vining, a Conserva tive alderman, opposed the re­nomination of the outgoing directors because they had not curbed the Company' s hosti lity towards the merca ntile interest. Supported by the Liberals and a few Conservative "defecto rs", he succeeded in having half the outgoing panel rejected. 18 The reason the Com­pany was so utterly unreceptive to the Council 's views was revealed during the 1846 selection. It appeared that the proprie ta ry directo rs regarded the Council's a ppointees as inferior delegates, who had no ma ndate to interfere with finances o r to restrict dividends. 19 Quite possibly the related questions of the level of dock dues and the municipalization of the port would have been more amena ble to solution had the Council's representatives been able to take a firmer line.20

In the a ffa irs of the two newly created bodies, the Cha rity Trustees 12 Webb Collection on Local Go••erm11e111, p. 226. 13 Sec E. E. Butcher, Bristol Corporation of the Poor 1696 1898 (Bristol Historical

Association pamphlet , 29, 1972). 14 See pam phlet in Cen tral Reference Li brary, Bristol Turnpikes: Report of commit­

tee of investigation. 1853. Having more than redeemed its debts. the Bristol Trust consented to its abolition in November 1867, and the toll gates were dismantled.

1 5 Supra, pp. 178- 180. '" Mirror. 19July 1851. p. 8. 11 Ga:ette, 5 Janua ry 1837, p. 3. 18 1bid .. 6 January 1842, p. 4. 10 Journal. 3 January 1846. p . 8. 20 Supra. pp. 166-169.

The Old and the New 209

and the Justices of the Peace, there was very li ttle scope for overt municipal intervention. We have a lready seen how the Conservatives had been frustrated over the nomination of the Justices. 2 1 Three­quarters of the o riginal balanced list mutually agreed upon by the two parties had consisted of councillo rs, but even a fter Lord John Russell had intervened in the interests of the Libera ls, two-thirds of those finall y chosen were councillors. For their part, the Con­servatives were far more concerned with adequate party representa­tion than with the need for the Bench to hold views consonant with those of the Council majority.

There was a slight overlap in jurisdiction between the Council and the Justices with regard to the gaols, but even here, as the Town Clerk pointed out in 1840, all the Council could do was to refuse to vote fund s. l t had no power to interfere with the supervision of the gaols, no twithstanding periodic agitation against such practices as enforced silence a nd separation. 22 Any direct intervention in penal administra tion would have been legally questionable, but there was of course a n info rma l channel of communication between the Council a nd the Justices, since so many councillors sat on the Bench.

lt will be recalled that a major dispute occurred over the initial selection of Charity Trustees in 1836. 2 3 One d ifference from the situation regarding the Justices was that the Council had no statutory right to submit nominations. Quite understandably in view of the financi al entanglements, the Council conceived that it had an over­riding interest in the matter, and in September 1836 it compiled a list of eighteen, perfectly balanced in party, but containing fifteen councillo rs. 2 4 Presumably the Court of Cha ncery had serious reser­vations a bout this weighted list, for it ruled that the trustees should number twenty-one, of whom a maximum of twelve should be coun­cillors. When deadlock was reached over who should enjoy the majority, the Conservatives in a fit of pique terminated the Council's involvement. 25 Thus, the initiative reverted to those who had o rigin­ally filed a petit ion fo r the establishment of C harity Trustees. These happened to be the Liberal councillors Cunningham and G eorge Sanders, and the final o utcome was a board heavily dominated by Liberals, a lthough less so by councillo rs. In the protracted wrangle over the charity funds a nd endowments/ 6 these councillor-trustees must sometimes have been in a dilemma as to where their loyalty primarily lay. However, the fact that Liberal councillors controlled the C harity Trustees, who were in dispute with a Conservative­controlled Council , kept the issues reasonably well defined . Evidently

2 1 Supra, p. 148. 22 Gazette, 7 May 1840, p. 3. 2 3 Supra, pp. 148- 149. 2 4 P.C. ( I), 6 September 1836, p. 228. 2 s Ibid ., 13 September 1836. p. 233. Sec also Gazette, 15 September 1836, p. 3 and

Journal, 29 April 1837, p. 2. 2 6 S upra. pp. 153-1 56.

210 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

there were no "traitors'' a t the Board, which never contemplated negotiating by a ppeasement. Finally in 1842 the Board precipitated a settlement by concilia tory gestures, an act which shows that they were an a utonomous body, in no way subservient to the Council.

Un til almost the middle of the century, there was thus little ex­pressio n of the Council's supposed superio r sta tus to o ther governing bodies in Bristo l. lt is true tha t it had an ex officio ro le in many of them, but this was not exploited , even in the case of the Dock Company. In practice, there was little evidence o f the idea of a two­tier structure in local government, and measured in terms of the various rates collected in Bristol, the Council exercised supervision over o nly 25% of local government ma tters. However, a change of the greatest magnitude was imminent. By a bsorbing first the Dock Company a nd then the Paving Commissioners in its dual role as Local Board of Health, the Council great ly extended its sphere of influence. After the municipaliza tio n of the docks in 1848, 33i% of the total rates collected in Bristol went to the Council. After the adoption o f the Public Health Act in 1851, the pro portion was 50%. The Council was now as importan t as all the o ther bodies combined a nd managed a revenue which soon exceeded £I 00,000 a year.

The assumption of public health functions is an appropriate point a t which to sto p a study of the Council's evolution, for the trend towards centra lization of functio ns had probably been carried to an optimum stage. Thoug h sound histo rica l a nd practical reasons could be adduced for the continuation of the separate administ ra tion of justice, the poor and charit ies, the Council had matured to the extent that it was clearly pre-eminent a mong the various bodies concerned with local government in Bristol. Equall y clearly, it was the obvious institution to which additional functions cou ld be en­trusted by the centra l government. And so in time the Council became responsible for the asylum ( 1846) and the library ( 1854), stree t improvements (1865), river police ( 1872), refuse disposal and parks ( 1875), fire protection ( 1877), e lectrical supply ( 1882), artisans' dwellings ( 1887), ho using of the working classes ( 1890) and the museum and art galle ry ( 1890).

In certain ways the 1835 Act produced remarkably litt le change in the government of Bristol, whatever may have happened na tion­all y in terms of a profound revolution which swept away the old order. In many respects power remained in the hands of the same kind o f people as before. Once the administ ra tion of the ci ty settled down, few Bristo lians would have believed that their c ity had experienced any significant upheaval. Kington had anticipated that in the reformed system party feelings would be excluded and the demarcation of neutral ground in the form of the Council C hamber would prove fa tal to political life. 27 If we leave aside the first few turbulent years, his prediction proved correct. Nevertheless, the word

z• J . B. Kington. A Burgess·s Let ters. Municipal Reform section. lencr I. p. 7.

The Old and the New 211

" revolutionary" is not altogether inapt, because a remarkable trans­formation in a ttitude did take place. The new municipal government evoked a distinctly different response from the citizens and this was the most profound consequence of the Municipal Corporations Act in Bristol.

Structurally, the three tiers of an annually-chosen Mayor, the aldermen and a larger group of councillors, were left intact. Alder­men were still chosen by eo-option, but the introduction of election for the Council was an innovation of the first magnitude. However, the intenti on to make councillors periodically accountable was often fru stra ted by the frequency of unopposed elections and by bipartisan arrangements to share out ward seats. Until they chose to vacate them, the majority of members of both of the old Corporation and the new Council could in effect retain their places fo r as long as they wished. In both the old Corporation and the new Council , the fu ll meeting was the ultimate authority. Both made much use of the committee system, but the new Council eliminated most of its defects. 28 Very wisely, the Council kept a much stricter rein on the activit ies of its officers than had its predecessor, a lthough it made little change in the staffin g structure. The Act of 1835 had conferred on the citizens an enhanced role. Admittedly the proletariat was still di enfranchised and the burgesses still comprised only 20% of the householders, but a brea kthrough had been made with acceptance of the principle of representa tion. Implicit in the Act was the creed that the Council and its members were the servants of those who elected them. Although there was no sta tutory obligation to secure public approval for municipal schemes, in the last resort the Council was answerable for its deeds to a growing section of the community.

Politically, the old Corpora tion had been solidly Tory. Once the Conservatives captured control of the aldermen, the Conservative ascendancy in the new Council was never threatened. Every alder­man chosen between 1822 and 1835 was Tory, as were all but fi ve of the thirty-eight elevated to this sta tus between 1836 and 185 1. Both in the 1820's and in the 1840's the opposition was in some danger of disappearing, only to be rescued by the governing party, which allowed it to recover some dignity. Interference in national affairs was avoided by both sides, but they both showed a preference for officers whose political views and sympathies coincided with their own. As regards parliamentary elections, there is no evidence that mun icipal funds were expended for this purpose. Both sides were disposed to support the Anglican church and to deplore any threa ts to it such as Catholic Emancipation and the restoration of the Papal hierarchy in 1850. In the final fifteen years of the old Corporation, partisanship in proceedings was missing, mainly beca use there was no contending group to act as an opposition. The situa tion was

28 E.g., the absence of a finance committee; the prol ife ra t ion o f types of com­mittee; the tendency to overlook reporting back.

212 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

reversed in the opening five years of the new system, with partisan­ship never far away, and often bursting out intemperately over divisive issues. It was only in the 1840's, when a ll challenges to Conservative supremacy had vanished, that dissension within the ra nks of the dominant party came to be regarded as harmless.

The composition of the new elected Council did not differ dramati­cally from that of the old Corporation . Merchants still dominated, and as before, their colleagues were on the whole professional men, notably attorneys and lawyers, not retail tradesmen. They were not likely to be gentry or nobility. As in the pre- 1835 period, most members of the governing body were staunch Anglicans, but both bodies contained a leavening of Nonconformists. However, the day of the openly agnostic or atheist councillo r was just dawning in 1850. Some differences in age patterns did exist, but they did not disguise the fact that both bodies were generally made up of men in the prime of life who believed themselves to be in every way the leaders of Bristol, a claim which few were disposed to dispute.

Thus in Bristol, municipal reform did not lead to " the immediate transfer of power to new classes",29 but it did cautiously introduce a new kind of councillor. Examples of this new breed such as Visger, Shaw, Gibbs and George Thomas were men of spirit , vigour and responsibility. A contemporary commented on the first echelon of councillors tha t while they were " highly respectable a nd intelligent citizens for the most part", they were not of "the grand Aldermanic supreme 'Select Vestry ', 'calipash a nd cali pee' strains of their predecessors". 30

A decade later, a local publicist left his impression of the Council:

Full lo udly did ye Mayor's hammer sound, and called ye knots and groupes, ... when, straightway, they did take theire seats upon ye sofas and ye benches round by which alone did know that they were of ye Councille, for, truth to saye, they looked a motley groupe, made up of lawyers, doctors, a few merchants, and some retail trades. 31 Looked again round ye C ha mber, and but for fear of being turned out, was sorely tempted to exclaime a loud " Where be ye Daniels a nd ye Caves- ye Eltons and ye Baillies- ye Bushes and ye Protheroes- ye Aikens and ye Frippes

29 G. M. Trevelyan, English Social History: a survey ofsix centuries, Chaucer to Queen Victoria (London , 1944), p. 526.

30 ""Reminiscences by 'L' of Bristo l's First Reformed Cou ncil and its Councillors""; Times & Mirror, 2 April 1888, p. 5. Calipash and calipee are gelatinous substances in turtles regarded as dainties by gourmets. T hey would have been on the menus of grand dinners given by wealthy citizens.

" T his assessment of occupation is shaky. In 1850 there were only five doctors and five lawyers on the Council , but fourteen manufacturers and twenty-two mer­chants. The "retail traders"" category apparently includes many of this latter group whose businesses dealt direct ly with consumers. While not invalidating the main drift of the description. it should be remembered that unless the a uthor was a reporter. counci llo r. o r had been smuggled in. he was only fictionally present at the meeting.

The Old and the New 213

- and ye score of other worthies- ye men of sta lwart minds-tha t were wont to grace ye Councille-Chamber,"- but being told they were all gone, did, truth to speake, think most irreverently of their successors. 32

These two quotations imply tha t the grandees, swells and blue bloods typical of the old Corpora tion had been replaced by those who, for all their superficial si mila rity of breeding, lacked that indefin able something, a perhaps larger-than-life dimension.

In many respects, the functions of the new Council did not diffe r markedly from those of the old Corporation. Until the Redcliffe and other improvements were commenced in the 1840's, the Council did little that could not have been done by the Corporation. It is true that it went fa r beyond the slrict letter of the Act of 1835 in its endeavour to establish an adequate and efficient police force, but on the other hand, until it beca me involved with the docks and public health, it actually exercised fewer functions than had the Corporation.33 It was said of the reformed municipal government in Southampton that, apa rt from setting up a police force, it carried on much as before, but that it did its work in a more businesslike way. 34 This comment could reasona bly be applied to Bristol.

Where the contrast between the old and new systems rea lly becomes sha rp is in the municipal body' s attitude to its place in the city. Kington, expressing his hopes about the benefi ts which would follow reform, defined the two outlooks:

We trust to fi nd ta lent superseding inefficiency; a strong sense of public duty taking the place of carelessness or utter ina tten­tion.35

Essentially, the old Corporati on had looked upon itself as a pri va te body which had graciously assumed some public duties. It was accoun table only to itself. Its revenue in no way formed a public stock and could with equal propriety be used for feasts, sa la ries of ceremonial officers,36 or for the common good , the latter being purely ex gratia muni ficence. If Corporation's interests conflicted with those of the city, the former prevailed. Any incursion into " its lawful rights and privileges" was resisted. It a ttempted to meet specia l needs by imposing specia l ra tes on the people of Bristol while retaining its own authority.37 The new Council, by way of contrast,

32 "" Mr. Pipys his Diary: Ye Towns Councille o f Bristo\ve 1r·. M irror. 15 December 1849, p. 8.

JJ After 1846 only one c1vil court remained for the Council to supervise. 34 A. Temple Pauerson, A History of Southampton, Vol. 11 , p. I. JS J . B. Kington, op. cit. . leucr I. p. 7. J 6 Sec W. lvor Jennings. Principles of Local Govemmelll Lmr (London: University

Press, 1931 ), p. 47. J 7 On this topic generally sec F. H. Spencer. Municipal Origins: An Accounr of

English Privare Bill Legislarion Relaring ro Local Go1·ernment 1740-/835 (London. 1911), pp. 40-41.

214 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

had meaning only in terms of representing the citizens and their aspirations. Everything it did was axiomatically "a public service". It might misunderstand or mismanage the public interest, but it could no t delibera tely flout it. Perhaps the two divergent philosophies are best illustrated by their respective reactions to the state of trade. The Corporation had at first denied that trade was declining, and when this view was shown to be untenable, it asserted that the decline was due to factors beyond its control. The prosperity of the city, in so far as it depended on commerce, was left in the unsym­pathetic hands of the Dock Company. On the other ha nd, the new Council maintained strenuo us and continuous pressure on the Com­pany to reduce dues and keep installations in good repair. Three times between 1839 a nd 1848, the Council sought to take over the docks. 38 Citizens could probably identify with the new Council's aspira tions, but there had been no bond between the citizens and the old Corporation. One consequence of the recurring antipathy was that the citizens would not countenance the imposi tion of a county rate. Because of this, the security the Corporation could offer for loans to carry out capital projects depended chiefl y upon the estates. Compared with this, the Council was in a strong financi al position. This was assured by the borough rate, reasonable economy, careful spending and proper financial supervision. Without question the Corporation had been sadly lacking in enterprise, but then, the new Council was no t no tably progressive either, a nd it had less excuse. Nevertheless, it was a marked improvement on the o ld regime in the way in which it transacted business and attracted talent to its ranks.

In fairness, it must be remembered that the Corporation had been burdened by certain disadvantages. Only half of the population of Bristo l came wi thin its jurisdiction, whereas the Council controlled a lmost the entire built-up area of the city. Furthermore, little had been demanded of pre-reform bodies by the central government, a nd it was only after 1835 that municipa l bodies came to be constrained by sta tute, inspection and the principle of ultra vires. Together, these stopped mis-spending a nd o ther abuses. Lastly, the Corporation of the period 1820-1 835 cann ot be blamed for instigating discord with the citizens. This had plagued relations for over a century and con­tinued irrespective of which part y or faction contro lled the Council House.

Yet it must be sta ted that these ex tenuating circumstances, genuine though they are, consti tuted the very reasons why the construction of a sturdy framework of local government on the foundation of the o ld Corporation was simpl y not feasible. lt had irrevocably a lienated the confidence of the citizens and had li ttle of substance to contribute to the govern ment of Bristo l in an era of growing popula tion , rapid industrial development and aggressive private enterprise. Higher standards were being demanded, and however un-

"'" S upra. pp. 16 7- 17 1.

The Old and the New 215

impeacha ble its motives, the Corporation discredited itself by its select nature, its passion fo r secrecy and its self-centred concern . The new Council pro mised a much more respo nsive a pproach to civic affairs. In o penly accepting its obligations to the city, it showed that it was like the Council in Southampton, .. much better a ttuned to time and circumstances" .39 There was no miraculous cha nge over­night a nd until new functions came under its contro l, the Council stopped short of its full potential. Although the 1835 reform may have engendered a nationwide "civic enthusiasm such as had not existed before for ma ny centuries" ,40 this mood was not character­istic o f Bristo l. The municipal millennium was no t a t hand in 1851, but a t least the citizens and their rulers were on the same side. For a ll the Council's hesitancy about tackling overdue refo rms, faith in " Progress" had been vindicated, and Bristol was on the way to getting the government it deserved.

19 A. Temple Pa ucrson, Selection f rom Southampton Joumals and Minutes, p. xi x. 40 P. Ashley. Local and Cenrra/ Government: A Compararive Stii(~V of England.

France. Russia and the United Swtes (London, 1906), p. 222.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. B I BLIOG RAPHI CAL ESSAY

I. Manuscript material

The Bristo l Archives Office possesses a n outstanding collection of municipal records (see Elizabeth Ralph, Guide to the Bristol Archives Office, Corporation of Bristo l, 197 1 ). Proceedings of the Council are indexed and after 1835 record a growing a mount of information. They a re the indispensable fou ndation of any study of Bristol's government. General records which augment these are the General Committee Book 18 19- 1835 and the Proceedings of the Mayor a nd Aldermen 1785- 1836, which give an insight into the ro le played by this '' inner cabinet". For the o ld Corporation 's final period the only comm ittee whose proceedings were recorded sepa ra tely seems to have been the City Lands Committee whose proceedings a re in the

· Surveyors Books 1829-1 836. From its inception the new Council kept the proceedings of all

major committees in sepa rate books: these include the C harity Com­mittee Book 1837-1846; City Lands and Improvement Committee Book 1836-1 839; Improvement Committee Minute Books 1841 -1850; Finance Committee Books 1836-1 850; Local Board of Health Committee Minute Book I 185 1- 1852; Watch Committee Minutes 1836-. A resume of the year's fin ancial transactions can be fo und in the Ledger 18 18-1835 (for the o ld Corporation) and printed abstracts 1835- (for the new Council). Detailed entries a ppear in Journals E 18 17- 1825, F 1825- 1832, G 1832- 1835, H 1836- 1845, I 1846- 1856, while the bala nces of the Ledger Books 18 18- 1853 1836- 1889 itemize amounts owed and due. The value o f the Corporation ' s propert y outside the city can be elicited from a survey a nd valuation of the city's esta tes by Y. a nd J . P. Sturge in 1833, a nd the value of the City for rating purposes is recorded in surveys of 1823, 1837- 1839 and 185 1. Correspondence and other papers, giving detailed informa tion about the activities o f the Council a nd its officers at this time are filed in a special series of wooden boxes, and there are Town C lerk's Letter Books from 1841 to 1864. Two other usefu l series are the compilation by J . E. Davies on the mayor , Sir J . K. Haberfield . and the Registers o f Wills which contain the value of many councillors' esta tes a t death.

At the C hamber of Commerce offices is a boo k covering the period 1823- 1826 which records del ibera tions of the Board of Directo rs,

Select Bibliography 217

Standing Committee and General Meetings about the town dues controversy. Some in teresting sidelights on municipal reform in Bristol are contained in the Vyvyan Papers at Cornwall Record Office, Truro, and the Pinney Papers, University of Bristol Library, help in an understanding of Charles Pinney's predicament during and after the 1831 Riots. The long history of the municipalization of the docks is touched on in the Minutes of Evidence on Bristol Docks Transfer Bill , H.C. Evidence 1847-1848, Vol. 7; and in Opposed Private Bills Group 9 at the House of Lords Record Office. The Port of Bristol Authority has in its keeping minutes of the docks undertaking from 179 1. On specific aspects of the port and its trade, the Merchant Venturers Society's Calendar of Records Vol. Ill 180 1-1900 (compiled by John Latimer), in the Merchants ' Hall pro­vides an addit ional commentary. Another issue facing the reformed Council, the transfer of charity assets, can be viewed from two perspectives through the Loan Money Account Book 1739-1 832 and the Bristol Charities Minute Book I 1836- 1842. These documents are housed at the Charity Trustees' office. In this study much atten­tion has been paid to the kind of people who governed Bristol. Manuscript material relating to this topic includes three series a t Somerset House- the Registers of Births and Deaths, the Registers of Wills and Wills Probate and Admon Acts. Because a high pro­portion of non-Anglican councillors professed the Unitarian faith , further information is contained in the Lewin's Mead Pew Book 180 1-1859 at the church and the Register of Baptisms. Lewin's Mead 1718- 1840 ( on-Parochial Registers) located in the Public Record Office.

2. Contemporary printed sources

For the thirty years covered by this st ud y there are seven relevant parliamentary reports relating to the government of Bristol. Of the greatest importance are The First Report of the Commissioners appointed to enquire into the Municipal Corporations of England and Wales: General Report and Report on the City and County of Bristol (H. C. , 1835 ( 11 6), XX III -XXVI) and the conseq uent ial Report of the Commissioners appointed to report and advise upon the Boundaries and Wards of certain Boroughs and corporate Tou·ns ( England and Wales) (H. C., 1837 (238), XXVI). Some information on political activi ty can be discovered in the Report of the Select Committee on Bribery (H. C., 1835 (547), VIII). The Report of the Commissioners for Enquiring concerning Charities in England and Wales: The Bristol Charities, Vol. 11, ed. T. J. Manchee, 183 1, collects under one cover all the basic facts about the Corporation 's charities. Aspects of two crucial local issues of the 1840's are dealt with in Admiralty Enquiry: Bristol Docks Transfer Act: Preliminary Enquiry by William Bald, Esq., C. E., ( Minutes of Evidence and Report) ( H. C., 1847- 1848

218 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

(1 48-35), XXXI ); and in the Health of T01rns Commission: Report on the State of Bristol by Sir Henry de la Beche (H.M.S.O., 1845) and the more comprehensive Report to the General Board of Health on a Preliminary Enquiry into the Se ll'erage, Drainage, and Supply of Water and Sanitory Condition of the Inhabitants of the City and County of Bristol, by George T. Cla rk (H.M.S.O., 1850) . The House of Lords Journal, 1835, LXVII contains a transcript of the testimony and cross-examina tio n o f Bristo l's representatives during the passage o f the Municipal Corpora tio ns Act. Amo ng the Parliamentary Accounts and Papers those o n Advowsons (Vo l. 4, 1836 (74), XL) and Shipping and T o nnage (Vo l. 27, 1847 ( 123), C l l) include statis­tics o n two matters of importance to bo th the o ld Corporation and the new Council.

A balanced, a nd after 1835 full , pic ture of municipa l affairs can be obtained by examining a ll four leading newspapers, the Gazette, Mercury, M irror and Journal. The former two were ant i-Tory and critical of the o ld Corporation. The To ry Journal inclined to give fanatical suppo rt to the o ld Corpora tio n (except in the town dues controversy), while the Mirror was mildly Conserva tive. Acland's Bristolian contains vio lent denuncia tio ns of the o ld Corpo ration. Between 1836 and 1841 the newspapers reported in great detail o n the Council 's work and thereafter they concentra ted o n major issues.

There are a great many broadsides, booklets and pamphlets. Most of such litera ture is held in the Bristol Public Library, either as individua l items, o r in collections, but two documents in the City Archives must be mentioned : these a re the Abstract of Audited Accounts of the Treasurer of the Borough of Bristol, 1836- 51, and A S chedule of the Land, Houses, Ground and Fee-Farm Rents and other Property belonging to the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Bristol, 1859. The ephemera in the Bristo l Public Library is bound up in : Bristol Tracts (two series): Broadsides o n the new County Ra te 1832; Broadside concerning the Mayor a nd Corpor­a tion ( 1789-1 848); Miscellaneous ewscuttings, Broadsides, etc. ( 1747- 1864); and Tro uble in Bristo l by Politics, Fire and Pestilence. As might be expected , most of these were penned by opponents of the Corpo ration o r those personally invo lved in some issue.

The Bristo l Riots of 183 1 produced a mass o f material. A wide variety o f standpoints is ex pressed in: Rev. Jo hn Eagles, Bristol Riots: their causes, progress and consequences (Gutch & Ma rtin, 1832); Alfred Ha rvey, The Bristol Riots; "An Impartial Ci tizen", The Magistrates of Bristol Brought to the Bar of Public Opinion ( 1832); Digby Mackworth, Personal .Narrative of the late events in Bristol; T. J . Ma nchee, Origin of the Riots in Bristol; .. Nehemiah", Plain Account of the Riots in Bristol; W. H. So merton, Narrative of the Bristol Riots; The Final Report of the Committee of Parochial Deputies, 30 Sept . 1835; Trial of Charles Pinney, esq.,- Mayor of Bristol during the Riots (Lo ndo n: 1833).

Mi scellaneous critical comments o n the city government include

Selecr Bibliography 219

H. W. Bucknall, Effecrs of rhe Public Healrh Acr, 1850; C hamber of Commerce, Reporr ro a special meering 2 January 1824 on rhe subjecr of Local Taxarion; " An Eye-Witness", The Evidence, Speeches of Counsel, and Proceedings in Parliamenr, upon rhe Brisrol Ton•n & Mayor's Dues Bill 1825; Thomas J . Manchee, The Presenr S rare of rile Free Grammar School considered; " Paul", Episrles on Corpora re Proceedings and Municipal Affa irs Generally wirhin rhe Ciry and Pori of Brisrol . 1836; Charles H. Walker, Leller ro rhe M ayor and Corporarion ... upon rheir Judicial Conducr and rhe Local Juris­prudence of rhe Ciry, 1822.

Elections and politics in the early, turbulent period until 1840 produced a considerable amount of material. There is a broadside of 2 April 1836 dealing with the nomination of J . P.s and another concerning the public meeting of 25 April 1836. Two more general pamphlets are Working of rhe Municipal Corporarion Reform Act in Brisrol, 1837 and "A No Party Man", The Bristol Municipal Annual for 1838: A Letter, Amusing and lnsrrucrionalro Tom Leveller from his cousin Jack Candour, 1837. Poll Books, which survive for the Central ward for 1835, 1836 and 1840, are invaluable fo r showing how the franchise was used; as are Parliamenrary Poll Books ( 1830, 1832, 1835, 1837, 1841 and 1847) for ascertaining political allegiance.

The dispute about the charities induced the adversaries to put their evidence in print. The first attack was the Reporr of Joshua Jones ro rhe Trusrees of the Brisrol Chariries (Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital), 1837. Robert Fletcher, Report to the Council of the Ciry of Bristol ( Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital), 1839, rebutted this and the Trustees replied with another analysis by Jones, Furrher Report ofrhe Accounts oft he Corporation of Bristol as late Governors o.fthe Queen Elizabeth 's Hospital, 1840.

The dispute over the municipalization of the port is documented in Report of Dock Proposals, 1839; Free Port Tracts, 1846- 1847 (in three parts); "Free Port" [Leonard Bruton], The Corporation of Bristol and its Trade and Commerce 1884- 85.

3. Local histories and other Brisroln·orks

Regrettably few works on Bristol's past do justice to the nineteenth century and place the municipal story in its wider context as Elizabeth Ralph has done fo r a much larger period in her Government of Bristol 1373- 1973 (Corporation of Bristol, 1973) . There is a grea t deal of material in those monumental works by John Latimer, The Annals of Bristol in the Eighteenth Cenrury (Bristol, 1893) and his The Annals of Bristol in the Nineteenth Cenrury (Bristol ,' l887), but only with the forthcoming publication of Dr. Brian Atkinson's general historical survey of the city from 1815 to 1914 will any ''global study" of Bristol be available. The city is particularly deficient in any

220 Bristol and its Municipal Go1•ernment 1820-1851

integrated coverage of its economic history. R. A. Buchanan and eil Cossons, The Industrial Archaeology of the Bristol Region

( e-wton Abbot, 1969) offers some tangential thoughts. By contrast, biographical details of councillors but not their reminiscences- are available in A. B. Freeman. Bristol Worthies and Notable Residents (Bristol, 1907) and in that remarkable compilation, Alfred B. Beavan, Bristol Lists: Municipal and M iscel/aneous (Bristol, 1899).

On the Corporation's constitution, R. C. Latham, Bristol Charters 1509-1899 (Bristol Record Society, 1947) is more balanced than An A ccowll of the Municipal Gol'emment and Locallnstitutions ofBristol, written by Henry Bush in 1825 when he was smarting under a sense of injustice over the issue of town dues, the legal intricacies of which he recorded in Bristol T01rn Dues (Bristol. 1828). Earlier, J. M . Gutch himself had published the collected letters he wrote under the pseudonym ""Cosmo" in T1rell'e Le tiers on the Impediments ll'hich ohstruct the trade and commerce of the Citr and Port of Bristol (Bristol, 1823). Following in their footsteps, ·though, J. B. -Kington ( .. A Burgess") in Letters. Essays. Tracts, and other DocumentJ , illustratil'e of the Municipal History of Bnstol and the Trade of its Port (Bristol, 1836) drew together many of the themes expounded by the critics of the Corporation over the preceding decade.

Several Bristol bodies -which performed certain public duties have been examined by historians. l'vliss E. E. Butcher edited for Bristol Record Society in 1932 a volume entitled Bristol Corporation of the Poor: Selected Records 1696-1834 and recently followed this with a Historical Association pamphlet, Bristol Corporation of the Poor 1696-1898 (No. 29, 1972). W. G. Neale, At the Port of Bristol 1848-1899 (Port of Bristol Authority, 1968) has an introductory section on the Dock Company, and supplements Charles Wells, A Short History of the Port l~( Bristol (Bnstol, 1909). For the Society of Merchant Venturers. there is John Latimer's The History of the Society of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol (Bristol. 1903 ), and more recently Patrick McGrath. The !vfercha111 Vemurers of Bristol (Bristol, 1975).

4 Secondary sources

There has been a continuing vast output of studies on nineteenth­century England, but less on local government. Still unsurpassed are the English Local Gol'ernment series by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, notably The Parish and the County ( 1906); The Manor and the Borough ( 1908), which includes a fine analysis of the Bristol Corporation; Statutory Authorities j()l· Special Purposes ( 1922) with its post-1835 section and references to Bristol's ad hoc bodies. A less detailed introduction is K. B. Smellie, A History of Local Government (London, 1968) or Sidney Webb's distillation, .. The Evolution of Local Government", a series of lectures delivered at the London School of Economics in 1899 and reprinted in the

Select Bibliography 221

Municipal Journal, 1951. H. J . Laski , W. I. Jennings and William A. Robson (cds.), A Century of Municipal Progress: The Last Hundred Years (London, 1935) touches on numerous and diverse features of the early reformed system. Certain constitutional aspects of local government and its reform have been painstakingly studied. For the period before the 1835 Act there is Frederick H. Spencer, Municipal Origins: English Private Bill Legislation Relating to Local Government 1740-1835 (London, 1911 ). G . B. A. M. Finlayson examined the officia l instrument of enquiry in "The Municipal Cor­porations Commis ion and Report 1833 35" (Bulletin of the lns titwe of Historical Research, vol. XXXVI , No. 93, May 1963), and the career of the unofficial architect of the reform can be followed in Jessie K. Buckley's biography, Joseph Parkes of Birmingham (Lon­don, 1926). Factors in the struggle to get the legisla ti on on the statute book are considered in G . B. A. M. Finlayson's article, "The Polit ics of Municipal Reform, 1835" (English Historical Revieu·, Vol. LXXXI , o. CCCXX I, October 1966). Since reform was a con­tinuing process, the physical extent of the districts controlled by local authorities was a subject of prime importance, as is shown in V. D. Lipman, Local Government Areas 1834-1945 (Oxford , 1949). Many observers held the int roduction of popular representation to be the cardinal outcome of the 1835 Act. The groups which had a formal role in choosing the local councils is the subject of B. Keith-Lucas, The English Local Government Franchise: A Short History (Oxfo rd, 1952). E. P. Hennock, Fit and Proper Persons: Ideal and Reality in Nineteenth-Century Urban Go1•ernment (London, 1972) is a massive survey of expecta tions and perceptions rega rding councillors, and the first few chapters overlap the peri od 1820-1850. For comparative assessment, they are very informative.

For purposes of comparison there are studies of other English cities and their governmental arrangements. Conrad Gill, History of Birmingham: Manor and Borough to 1865, Vol. I (Oxford, 1952) and Brian D. White, A History of the Corporation of Liverpool 1835-1914 (Li verpool, 195 1) are respectively a definiti ve history and a revised thesis. All student s of municipal as well as urban history are permanently indebted to A. Temple Patterson. His Radical Leicester: A History of Leicester 1780- 1850 (Leicester, 1954) is very evocative of the period. Southampton must be the envy of many cities whose past has hitherto been neglected. Its story i admirably recounted in Temple Patterson's two-volume History of Southamp­ton 1700-1914 (Vol. I " An Oliga rchy in Decline 1700- 1835"; Vol. 11 "The Beginnings of Modern Southampton 1836- 1867") published by the Southampton University Press in 1966 and 1971 respectively. In addi tion, he edited in 1965 for the same publishers A Selection f rom the Southampton Corporation Journals 1815 35, and Borough Council Minutes 1835 47.

Finally, there are a number of helpful theses and other local studies. G. B. A. M. Finlayson's The Municipal Corporations Act

222 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-185 1

1835 (Oxford B.Litt. thesis, 1959) is a model of historical analysis for those who wish to understand the legislation. S. E. Kerrison' s Coventry and the Municipal Corporations Act (Birmingham M.A. thesis, 1939) and D. Fraser's Politics in Leeds 1830-1852 (Leeds Ph.D. thesis, 1969) provide very useful material for compari~on . A. J. Pugsley's Some contributions towards the s tudy of the economic development of Bristol in the 18th and 19th centuries (Bristol M.A. thesis, 1921) ventures into a little-explo red field, as does D. J . Pa tterson's manuscript On the growth of the Public Health Service in Bristol 1806- 75, which is deposited in Bristo l University Medical Library. Two useful pamphlets published by the Bri sto l Branch of the Historica l Association are Susan Thomas' The Bristol Riots, 1974 and R. . B. Waiters, The Establishment of the Bristol Police Force, 1975. For a new interpretation , see B. W. E. Alfo rd, " The economic development of Bristol in the nineteenth century: a n enigma?", in Essays in Bristol and Gloucestershire History, ed. Patrick McG rath and J ohn Cannon, Bristo l, 1975.

B. ADDITIO N AL REF ERENCES

I . Manuscript material

Bristol City Archives Bond Books 2 1739- 1845; 3 1846-Burgess Books 18 to 21 Cha mberlain 's Letter Book 18 16- 1829 City Treasurer's Letter Books 1839-1 849; 1849- 1857 Dakin Papers General Board [of Health , Bristo l] Minute Book Memoranda Book 18 15-1 852 Minute Books 1802-1 824; 1824-1 835 Minute Book [of Paving Commissioners] 16 1827- 1829 Rent Ledger 1836-1856 St. Stephen 's Minute Book 18 12-1 844 Swordbearer's Book 1794 Wine in the Cellar of the Council House 3 1 December 1835

Bristol Municipal Library D. Vickery (comp.), Bristo l Calendars 1824-1 864, Vol. 11 , 1836-1 857

Commercial Rooms Committees of the Bristol Commercial Rooms from its opening

29 September 18 11

Gloucestershire Record Office Justice Oa th Rolls (Gloucestershire) 182 1; 1830; 1837

Select Bibliography

London School of Economics Webb Collection on Local Government

Society of Merchant Venturers Merchant Ha ll Book of Proceedings 16 1824-1 830

Port of Bristol Authority The Bristo l Dock Accounts for the Year ending 30 April 185 1

Somerset Record Office Justice Oath Rolls 182 1; 1830

Unpublished Thesis

223

T. Ridd, The Development of Municipal Government in Swansea in the 19th Century (University of Wa les M.A., 1955)

2. Contemporary printed sources

Parliamentary Census for 1801; 18 11 ; 182 1; 183 1; 1841 ; 185 1 Accounts a nd Papers: Electors Vol. 17, 1850 (748), XLIX; Rates

Vol. 17, 1850 (388), XLIX ; Shipping and Tonnage Vol. 22, 185 1 (656), Lll; Religious Census Vol. 33, 1852- 1853 (1960), LXXXIX

Hansard's Parliamentary Debates The Statutes of the United Kingdom House of Commons J ournals 1824, XIX; 1847-1 848, C II

Newspapers and periodicals (Bristol) Observer (Bristo l) Times & Mirror Blackwood's Magazine March 1832 Quarterly Review CVII , Vol. LIV, July 1835

Genera/works Frederic Boase, Modern English Biography, Vol. I (Truro, 1892) "The Original Editor" , The Extraordinary Black Book (London,

183 1) J . R. Somers Vine, English Municipal Institutions: Their Growth and

Development from 1835 to 1879 (London, 1879)

Broadsides and pamphlets Bristol Statistical Society, Fifth Annual Report , 1841 Sir Thomas Buxton, Bristol Jail, 18 18 Bristol Turnpikes: Report of Committee of In vestigation, 1853 Important Sale [re changeover in 1835] The Improvement of Bris tol: A Report setting forth a plan proposed

by the Town Improvement Company, 1846 "A Pro testant", [The working of the new system], 1837

224 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

3. Local histories and other Bristol works

F. W. E. Bowen, Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Bristol: The City School (Clevedon, 1971)

Keith Brace, Portrait of Bristol (London, 1971) Harold G. Brown, Bristol, England ( Bristol, 1946) C. H. Cave, A History of Banking in Bristol from 1750 to 1899

(Bristol, 1899) Corporation of Bristol, Bristol Police Centenary 1836-1936 John Evans, A Chronological History of Bristol (Bristol, 1825) C. P. Hill , The History of the Bristol Grammar School (London, 1951 ) James Johnson, Transactions of the Corporation of the Poor during

a period of 126 years (Bristol, 1826) Frederick C. Jones, Bristol's Water Supply and its Story (Bristol

Waterworks Company, 1946) Bryan Little, Bristoi- Study of an Atlantic Civilization (London,

1954) C. M . Maclnnes a nd W. F. Whittard (eds.), Bristol and its Adjoining

Counties (Bristol: British Association for the Advancement of Science, 19 55)

Edward Martin and Bill Pickard (eds.), 600 Years of Bristol Poetry (City and County of Bristo l, 1973)

W. E. Minchinton (ed.), The Trade of Bristol in the Eighteenth Century (Bristol Record Society, 1957)

Richard Pa res, A West India Fortune (London, 1950) A. C. Powell and J. Littleton, A History of Freemasonry in Bristol

(Bristo l: Provincial Grand Lodge, 19 1 0) Brian Smith and Elizabeth Ralph, A History of Bristol and

Gloucestershire (Beaconsfield, 1972) W. N. Reid and W. E. Hicks, Leading Events in the History of the

Port of Bristol (Bristol, 1877) Waiter A. Sampson, A History of the Red Maids School ( Bristol,

1908) Sa muel Seyer, Memoirs of Bristol (Bristol , 1821) William Sturge, Some Recollections of a Long Life (Bristo l, 1893) C harles Tovey, A Free Library for Bristol: With a History of the

City Library ( London , 1855)

4. Secondary sources

General modern works Asa Briggs, The Age of improvement (London, 1959) R. W. Clements, Local Notables and the City Council: The Role of

Bristol's Business and Social Leaders in the City's Government (London, 1969)

Hugh M. C lokie a nd William J . Robinson, Royal Commissions of Enquiry (California, 1937)

Herman Finer, Municipal Trading ( London, 1941 )

Select Bibliography 225

Norman Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953) Charles Gross, A Bibliography of British Municipal History

( Harvard, 191 5) T. E. Headrick, The Town Clerk in English Local Government

(London, 1962) Ursula Henriques, Religious Toleration in England 1787-1833

(London, 1961) Raymond V. Holt, The Unitarian Contribution to Social Progress

In England (London, 1938) G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England ( London, 1962) Hesketh Pearson, The Smith of Smiths (London, 1945) Arthur Redford and I. S. Russell, The History of Local Government

in Manchester, Vol. 11 ( Borough and City ) (London, 1940) Josef Redlich, Local Government in England, ed. F . W. Hirst , Vol. I

(London, 1903) Nowell C. Smith (ed.), The Le tiers of Sydney Smith. Vol. I (Oxford,

1953)

Articles Michael Cook, " The last days of the unreformed Corporation of

Newcastle upon Tyne'"; Archaeologia Aeliana, Vol. XXXIX ( 196 1) Jennifer Hart , " Reform of Borough Police 1835-56", English

Historical Review, Vol. LXX ( 1955) E. P. Hennock, "Finance and Politics in Urban Local Government

in England 1835- 1900", The Historical Journal, Vol. VI , No. 2 ( 1963)

W. E. Minchinton, " Bristol- metropolis of the west in the eighteenth century" , Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series IV (1954)

APPE N DIX I

PAID OFF ICE RS AND E MPLOYEES'

PERSONAL AlTENDANTS

Sword Bearer Mayor"s Serjeants (4) Mayor"s Marshals (2) Mayor's Beadles (2) Sheriffs' Serjeants (4) Sheriffs' Yeomen (4) Sheriffs' Beadles (4)

C'liAMBERLAI 's OFFICE

Chamberlain Deputy Chamberlain C lerks (2)

TOWN C LERK'S OFFICE

T own Clerk

THE CORPORATION 1820- 1835

(The serjeants, yeomen and marsha ls were also employed for part of their t ime in the courts)

Deput y Clerk of the Peace (His office performed all office business of the Town Clerk) Mayor's C lerk

COURTS AND JUSTICE

Steward of Tolzey (Sheriffs') Court Prothonota ry of T olzey Court Keeper of T olzey Court Assessor of Court of Requests Registrar of Court of Conscience Coroners (2) Governor of Gaol Surgeon to Gaols C haplain to Gaols Keeper of Bridewell Policemen ( 12) (After 1832)

MARKETS

C lerk of Exchange Collector of Exchange Keeper of Exchange Clerk of Haymarket Clerk of St. James Market

' Table compiled from Municipal Corporarions Report: Brisrol, and from the "Officers' Sa la ries" in Journals E, F and G. T he table excl udes very minor officers.

Appendix 1 PORT

Collector of Town Due~ lla ven Master (Superv1~c; port, nver. p1lots, sh1ps m Bnstol Channel) Pilots (28)

Water Bailiff (Th ffi 1 h ' · h h b ) Q W d

ese two o cers contro s 1ppmg m t e ar our uay ar en

M IS< lLLA '-EOLS

Inspector of UISances (2) (1-or the cn y and the harbou r) Keeper of the Bridge Corn Metre ( Measure~ gram being shipped) L1branan Organist to Mayor's Chapel Surveyors (2) Land Steward (Superv1oes all the estates) Common Crier Mayor's Chaplam Clerk to Mayor's Chapel

P~RSONAL ATTENDAI'> IS

Mayor's Officers (4) Sword Bearer

TRicASURfR 's OHIC'E

Treasurer First Clerk Deputy Treasurer

IOW'I ( LlRK'S OHIC'E

Town Clerk

TilE:. TOWN COUNCIL 1836- 185 1

City Solicitors (2) (Abolished 1849) Clerks to the Justices (2)1

( OlJRTS AND JUSliC'E

Recorder' Steward of Tolzey (Shenffs') C oun Prothonotary of Tolzey Court Assessor of Court of Reque>ts (Abolished 1846) Registrar of Court of Consc1ence (Abolished 1846) Deputy Registrar of Court of Conscience (Appomted 1845. Abolished 1846) Coroner

I'RISONS4

A Nell'gate

Governor Governor's Clerk Surgeon Chap! am Matron Schoolmaster Turnkeys

2 Appomted by the Just1ccs of the Peace. but salanc; pa1d by the Council. 'Appomted by the Crown.

227

• Appointed and pa1d by the CounciL but under the control of the Justices of the Peace.

228 Bristol and its Municipal Government /820-1851

B Bnde .. ·e/1

Keeper Chaplam Surgeon Matron Turnkeys

POLKF'

Superintendent Inspectors (4) Sergeants (4) Sergeant-Clerk Constables ( 198) Surgeon

\1ARKLTS

Clerk of Exchange and St. Jame!. Market~ Collector of Exchange Collector of St. James Market Clerk of Hay and Coal Market Constables of Exchange and St Jame~ 'VIarkeb

t\1PROVLME:\TS

Improvement Fund Clerks (2) City Arch1tect Cll) Suncyor; (Increased to lour m 1840. reduced to three m 1841))

PORT0

Collector of Mayor·s Dues and fees to Quay Warden and Water Ba1liff (Appomted 1848)

Collector of To" n Dues Haven Master Pilots (28) Water Bailiff Quay Warden Crane Master (Appointed 1837) Crane Master·s Clerk (Appomted 1837)

MtSCELLAI\EOL;S

Land Steward Inspector of uisances Inspector of uisanccs (R1ver) (Appomted 1!!50) Inspector of Weights and Measures Keeper of the Bridge Housekeeper of the Council Hou~ Librarian ' Corn Measurer Mayor"s Chaplain Clerk to 'VIayor·s Chapel Organist to Mayor"s Chapel

'Strength of force increased in the 1840\. 0 This list does not include the DocJ.. Company staff taken over when the doch

were municipalized in 1848. ' Appointed by the L1brary Soc1ety

APPE D I X 2

T H E CORPORATIO 1820- 1835

MAJOR 'ET SOURCES OF At'-t'-UAL it--COME

Re- Ton·11 Re11ts Manors neu·als Markets Dues Sales Charities

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1820 4,053 1,903 2,935 3,534 4,036 855 182 1 4,435 1,341 2,574 4, 131 4.087 1,600 1822 4,32 1 1,676 59 1 3,8 18 3,623 1,064 1823 4,472 711 1.394 4,162 3,41 9 47 1824 4. 126 715 4,298 4,260 2.873 117 1825 4,393 1,08 1 3,229 4.25 1 957 38 1826 4,752 1.156 3,7 11 3.776 I ,322 176 1827 4,888 1.084 4,016 3.805 1:848 22 1 1828 5, 124 1,57 1 2,471 3,723 896 6,894 1829 5,23 1 785 2.299 3,953 1,745 230 1830 5,032 - 343 5.890 4.093 1,676 463 183 1 5.287 - 1.68 1 6,9 10 2.832 1,772 846 1832 5.07 1 - 1,001 3.291 3.434 1,524 c8.796 1.2 18 1833 4.603 15 3.438 3,809 1.361 5,376 1.28 1 1834 4,498 1,143 2.040 3.840 1.248 283 960 1835 4,576 1,507 3.574 4. 137 1,078 8,069 1.361

TOTALS 74,862 11 ,663 52,661 61,553 33.465 22.524 24,99 1'

e = Est imated

MAJOR NET I'I~MS 0~ AI\NUAL ~X i'ENDil RE

Extra-Ordin- ordin- Officers· Council Allou·a11ces aries aries Salaries Prisons Interest House Mayor Sheriffs

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 1820 3.256 1,903 2,225 1.966 1.506 326 1, 156 1.527 182 1 2,588 1,707 2.228 1,956 1,473 399 1,202 1,464

1822 2,644 1,9 11 2,130 2.289 1,473 370 9 0 1.464 1823 2.449 1.063 2,422 2.133 1.372 388 830 1.254 1824 3,406 4,523 2,32 1 1.887 1,280 22 1 627 1,254 1825 3.228 4,685 2,335 2. 151 1,280 352 1,399

1826 2.566 4.263 2,440 2,279 1,463 1,432 1, 153 1827 2.020 7,509 2.490 2.330 1.9 11 14.022 1,38 1 1,237 1828 3.063 + 3,169 2,480 2.145 2,5 16 1,315 1,401 986

1829 4,266 2.944 2,474 2.070 2,284 2,436 1.348 1,333 1830 2,329 539 2,480 1.914 2,547 933 1,389 1,136 183 1 4,075 1.544 2,480 2,039 2,625 1,107 1,329 1,119

1832 3,371 5.487 2,480 5,354 2,775 1, 11 3 1,5 15 1,106

1833 2.592 4,596 2,7 19 5,255 3,092 856 1,082 795 1834 3, I l l 3,723 2,778 + 1,657 3,334 8 17 1, 111 795

1835 3,1 22 1,572 2.786 5.645 3,443 765 1,076 1, 145

TOTALS 48,086 44.800 39.268 39.756 34,374 25,068 18,2 11 19, 167

Figures based on the annua l stock balance entries in the Ledger 18 18-1 835.

230 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

TH E TOW N COUNCIL 1836-185 1

MAJOR NET SOURCES OF I COME1

Rems Manors Rates Fees Markets Totl'n Dues

£ £ £ £ £ £ 18362 3,138 1.599 38 1,37 1 650 1837 6,173 1,780 446 2,2 10 2.372 1,172 1838 5,919 2,636 17,653 2,862 2,943 1.079 1839 4,227 I ,932 22,669 2,55 1 1,649 1,130 1840 5,893 2,053 16,5 16 2.935 3,034 1,350 1841 5,693 1,757 14,628 3,314 2.753 1.5963

1842 5,553 1,827 16, 178 2,028 2,936 1,676 1843 5,750 1,858 19.2 17 1,562 3,068 1,726 1844 5,619 1,689 17.0 14 1,830 2,901 2,328 1845 5,966 1,643 19,947 1,876 2,722 2, 128 1846 6,01 5 1,492 23,966 1.763 2,665 2, 128 1847 6,677 1,508 22.392 1.879 2,62 1 2,483 1848 6,820 1,654 25,743 1,798 2.311 3,027 1849 7,0 10 1,3 14 21,199 2,230 2,334 3.332 1850 6,75 1 1, 110 22,636 3,347 2. 108 2,668 1851 7,567 1,742 22.388 3.295 2.045 3,200

TOTAlS 94,77 1 25.864 282,592 35,518 39,832 31,673

1 Calculated from the annual credit stock ba lances entered in Journals H 1836-1 845 and I 1846- 1856.

2 For eight months only. 3 From 1841 onwards, the mayoral allowance was not deducted from this figure.

MAJOR NET ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE'

Officers' Police Salaries Gaols Ordinaries Improvements

£ £ £ ( £ 18362 3,318 2, 102 1,337 537 1837 14,300 4,98 1 2,268 1.905 1838 11 ,650 6,121 4,848 3.338 1839 12,059 5.808 5,02 1 3,179 1840 11 ,923 5,740 5,000 2.851 1841 12.479 6, 107 6.256 2,7 15 176 1842 12,8 17 5.407 4, 121 2.705 475 1843 15, 105 5,405 4.370 2,083 55 1 1844 15,801 5,390 4,195 2. 104 1,273 1845 13,482 5.489 5,328 2,574 1,202 1846 13,583 5.476 4.405 2,895 1.325 1847 14.875 5.62 1 5,173 3.225 1.487 1848 13,484 5.383 3,351 3,002 3,011 1849 14, 136 5,539 3.287 2,935 1,630 1850 13,941 5,972 2.639 3.342 7,923 1851 13.548 5,899 3.353 3.860 4,7 10

TOTAlS 206.50 1 86.440 64,951 43,250 23,763

' Calculated from the annual debit stock balances entered in Journals H 1836- 1845 and I 1846-1856.

2 For eight months only.

Year

1803

1806

1806

1807

1808

1809

1816

1816

1819

1819

1821

APPEND IX 3

PRINCIPAL LOCAL ACTS APPLYING TO BRISTOL 1800-185 1

Reference

43 Geo. Ill, c. l40 46 Geo. Ill , c.26

46 Geo. Ill. c.35

47 Geo. Ill , c.33

48 Geo. Ill , c.ll 49 Geo. Ill , c.l7

56 Geo. Ill , c. 59 56 Geo. I ll, c.76

59 Geo. Ill , c.2 59 Geo. Ill . c.95

3 Geo. IV. c.2 1

Subject

Doch

Paving

Docb

Port

Docb

Docks

Gaol

Civ1l Justice

Light10g

Roads

Docl..s

Title An Act for

Improving and rendenng more commodiou;, the Port and Harbour of Bristol. Amending, altering. and enlarging the powers of several Acts, passed for paving, pitching. c leansing, and lighting the Street;, and other Places within the City of Bristol and Liberties thereof. To alter a nd amend an Act, passed in the Forty-th1rd Year of I lis present Majesty, intituled .... and for extending the Powers and ProvisiOns of the said Act. Ascerta1010g and establishing the Rates of Wharfage, Cranage, Plankage, Anchorage, and Moorage. to be received at the lawful Quays in the Port of Bristol; for the Regu­lation of the Cranekeepers in the said Port; and for the beller Regulation of Pilots and Pilotage of Vessels navigating the Bristol Channel. Complet10g the Improvement of the Port of Bristol. To enable the Bristol Dock Company to borrow a further Sum of Money fo r com­pleting the Improvements of the Port and Harbour of Bristol. Building a new Gaol in the City of Bristol, and for other purposes. The more speedy and easy Recovery of Small Debts 10 the City and County of the City of Bristol, and the Liberties thereof, and 10 the several Parishes and Places therein mentioned, in the Counties of Gloucester and Somerset. Lighting with Gas the City of Bristol. and certain Parishes adjacent thereto. Rcpainng, w1dening, and improving the several Roads around the City of Bristol. and for making certain new Lines of Road to communicate with the same. To alter. amend, and explain the several Acts pas;,ed for Improving and rendering more commodious the Port and Harbour of Bristol.

232 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

Year Reference Subject T itle An Act for

1822 3 Geo. IV, Poor, Rates The Employment , Maintena nce, and Regu-c.24 and Paving lation o f the Poor of the City of Bristol:

and for the a ltering the Mode of assess-ing the Ra tes for the Relief of the Poor. a nd . .. for improving the Harbour there, a nd for paving, pi tching, cleansing and lighting the same City; and for the Relief of the Chu rchwardens and Overseers from the collecti ng of such rates: and for amend-ing an Act for paving. pitching. cleansing, a nd lighting the said City.

1823 4 Geo. IV. Lighting Lighting with Oi l Gas the C ity of Bristol, c-.102 a nd the Parish of Clifton in the County of

Gloucester, and certa in Parishes a djacent thereto.

1825 6 Geo. IV. Po rt Dues T o enable the Mayor, Burgesses. and Corn-c.20 1 monalty of the City of Bristo l. to reduce,

alter. modify. and regulate certain dues. called Town dues a nd Mayor's dues and charging and collecting thereof.

1828 9 Geo. IV, Cattle Removing the present Cattle Ma rket now c.41 Market held in Saint Thomas Street in the City of

Bris tol. a nd fo r providing a better and more convenient Market instead thereof. and for rebuilding and enla rging the Wool Hall in Saint T homas Street.

1830 11 Geo. IV. Suspension Building a Bridge over the River Avon. from c.69 Bridge Clifton in the Coun ty of Gloucester to the

opposite Side of the River in the County of Somerset , and for making convenient Roads and Approaches to comm unicate therewith .

1831 I Will. IV. Poor To a lter, a mend , and enla rge the Powers of c.4 an Act passed in the thi rd Year of the

Reign of His late Majesty King George the Fourth fo r regula ting the Poor of the City of Bristol. a nd for other Purposes connected therewith.

1832 2 Will. IV. Rio t Mo re easily providing Compensation for the c .88 Compensat ion Damage and Inju ry committed within the

City of Bristol and County of the same City during the la te Riots a nd Disturb-a nces therein .

1835 5 &6Wili . IV. Railway Making a Railway from Bristol to join the c.l07 Londo n and Birmingham Railway nea r

London, to be ca lled " The Great Western Ra il way", with Branches therefrom to the Towns of Bradford and Trowbridge in the County of Wilts.

1836 6 Will. IV. Riot To enable the Mayor. Aldermen , a nd Bur-c .64 Compensation gesses of the Borough of Bristol to raise a

Sum of Money towards discharging the Monies !.sic] borrowed under the Authority of an Act passed in the second Year of the Reign of His Present Majesty.

Year Reference

1837 I Vie .. c.84

1837 I Vie .. c.85

1837 I Vtc., c.86

1837 I Vtc., c.l31

1838 I & 2 Vtc., c.66

1840 3 Vtc .. c.77

1842 5 & 5 Vie .. c.9

1845 8 & 9 Vie., c.204

1846 9 & 10 Vtc .. c.222

1847 10& 11 Vie., c. l29

1848 11 & 12 Vtc .. c.43

Appendix 3 233

Sllhjl'CI

Civil Just tee

Encroachment Prevention

Rate Collection

Cemetery

Bndge

Improvements

Boundary

Rate Collection

Water Supply

Improvements

Docl..s

Title An Act }or

Granting more effectual Po"ers for the Regulation of the Court of Conscience "ithin the City of Bnstol. Removing and preventmg Encroachments within the City and County of Bristol, and for better regulating the Shtpping. Rivers. Wharfs [sic]. Backs. and Quays, and the Markets within the same, and for other purposes. The better assessing and collccttng of certain Pa rochial and other Ra tes within the City and County of Bristol. Establishing a General Cemetery for the Interment of the Dead in or near the City of Bristol. Building a Bridge from the Parish of Saint Philip and J acob over the Floating Harbour to the Parish of Temple m the City a nd Count)' of Bnstol. Regulating the Bulldmgs and Party Walls within the Cit) and County o f Bristol, and for \~idening a nd Improving several Street• within the same. Restoring to the City and County of Bristol a Portion of the ancient Boundary of the same. Removmg Doubts relating to the Collection of certain Portions of the Borough Rates of the City and County of Bristol. Supplying with Water the City of Bristol. and certain Pa rishes adjacent thereto, in the Counties of G loucester and Somerset. Extending and enlarging the Provisions of the Act for regulating Buildings and Pa rty Walls within the City and County of Bristol. ... Facilitating the Transfer of the Bris tol Docks to the Mayor. Aldermen , and Bur­gesses of the City of Bristol. a nd fo r other Purposes.

A PP E DIX 4

BIOGRAPHI CAL N OTES ON M EMBERS OF TH E CORPORATI ON

The notes given fo r each member are in the following seq uence: I Name 2 Yea r of birth 3 Date of death 4 Age at death 5 Service as a common councillor 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

Service as a n alderman Service as mayor Service a s a sheriff Po li tical affi liation Occupa tion (principal one d uring period) Value of estate at death Religious affiliation Residence (principal one during period) O ther important positions held See a lso notes o n town councillors (where served a fter 1835)

No1e I For info rmation on the sources used to p rovide the above in fo rma tion, see

appropriate footno tes in c hapter two. 2 Comple te records relative to religious affilia t ion and value of estate at death

have not been compiled. 3 Members who were elected as e ither mayor or sheriff. but who refused to serve.

arc not included under tha t particular head ing. 4 In most cases. information on the year of birth has not been ascertained directly.

but has been calculated from age a nd date of death . 5 Abbreviations used: J .P. Justice of the Peace

G. I. P. Governo r of the Incorporat ion of the Poor T. I.P. Treasurer o f the Incorporation of the Poor.

Levi AMES, b. l739, d.l 6 Dec. 1820. a.81; cllr. l 771- 1792, aldn.l792- 1820, mayor 1789. sh. l772; Whig; Banker: £120.000; Unitarian: Clifton Wood .

Levi AMES. J r .. b. J778. d.26 Dec. 1846, a.68; cl lr. J804-1835. sh.J805; Whig; Banker; £50,000: Anglican: Rodney PI. , Clifton.

C harles A DERSO . b. l766. d. J9 Ja n. 1836, a.70; cllr. J792-1822, sh. l 794; Whig; Corpora tion servant; £600; Unitaria n; Q ueen Sq. , St. icho las; Receiver Town Dues 1815- 1836.

Evan BA I LLI E, b. l 742, d.28 J unc 1835, a .93; cllr. J785- J802 and 182 1-1835, aldn. 1802- 182 1. sh. l787; Whig; Mercha nt; £80,000; re ligion unknown; Dochfour, Inverness; M.P. fo r Bris to l 1802- 18 12.

John BA RROW. b. l 763. d.3 Ju ly 184 1, a.78; cl lr. 18 16-J828, aldn. l828-1834, mayor 1824, sh. J817; T ory: Wool mercha nt; £200; Anglican; Cotham Lodge.

George BE GOUG H. b. l 793. d.25 Dec. 1856, a.63: cllr.1829- 1835. sh.l 832; Whig;

Appendix 4 235

Atto rney; £35 ,000; Anglican(?); Cornwallis C res., C lifton; J .P. 1836, Charity Trustee 1836-1850.

Benjamin BIC KLEY. b. l 763, d . l5 Ocl. 1846. a.83; cllr.l807- 1835. sh. l809, 1812. 1814 and 18 16; Tory; Merchant; £25,000; Anglican; Queen Sq., SI. icho las·.

Richard BLAKE, b. 1760, d.6 Aug. 1829, a.69; cl lr.1 792- 1829; Whig; Retired; estate unknown; Anglican; Portland Sq., SI. Pauls.

Edward BRICE, b.l767, d . l4 July 1833, a.66: cllr.l806- 1833, sh. l807 and 18 12: Tory; Suga r refiner: £200; Anglican; Rhod yate Lodge, Congresbury.

Worthington BRICE. b.l748. d.l3 Jan. 1826. a. 78: cllr. l799- 1826. sh. l800; Whig; Merchant; £2,000; Anglican ; Princes SI. , SI. icholas·.

Matthew BRIC K DALE, b. l 734. d.8 Scpl. 183 1. a .97; c llr. 1767-1 824; T ory; Retired; Bankrupt, il (18 19); Anglican ; West Monck ton, Somerset; M.P. for Bristol 1768-1774 and 1780- 1790.

Richard BR IG HT. b. l756. d.25 Jan. 1840, a.84; cllr.l783-1835; Whig; West India proprietor; £45.000; Unita rian; Ham Green, Somerset and Great George S1.

Henry BROOKE, b. l 763, d .3 1 Ma r. 1829. a .66; cllr. l806-1819, a ldn . l8 19-1 829. mayor 18 19, sh. l807; Tory: Wood merchant: £3,000; Anglican: Henbury House. G loucestershire.

Thomas CA MPLI , b. l78 1, d .8 Dec. 1856. a .75; cllr.l821-1829, aldn . l829- 1835, mayor 1827, sh. l822; To ry; Insurance broker; £30,000; Anglican; Stapleton Rd., Gloucestershire.

Michael CASTLE, b. l 763. d.22 May 1821, a.58: cllr.l809- 1821. mayor 1813. sh. l810; Whig: Retired: £120,000; Unit arian: Old Market SI.: G. I.P. 1818-18 19.

Michael H. CASTLE, b. l 785. d .23 Jan . 1845. a .60; cllr.1 83 1-1835. sh.1833; Whig; Distiller; £35,000; Unitarian; Clifton Hill ; see also notes on councillors.

John CAVE, b.l765, d.27 Ma r. 1842, a .77; cllr.1822-1835, mayor 1829, sh. l823: Tory; Manufacturer; £ 180,000; Anglican; Bren try House, Glouceste rshire.

Stephen CAVE, b. l764. d . l8 Feb. 1838, a .74; cllr.l822, aldn.l822-1827; Tory: Banker; £4,000; Anglican; Rodney House. Clifton; G. I. P. 18 13- 18 14.

William C LAXTO , b.l798. d.24 June 1873, a .75; cllr.1829-1 835. sh.183 1; Whig: Merchant; £5,000; Anglican: Trinity SI., SI. Augustine's.

Henry C RUGER, b. l739, d.24 Apr. 1827, a.88; cllr.l766-1782 and 1792- 1827, a ldn.l782- 1792, mayor 1782, sh.1767; Whig; Merc hant; estate unknown; Anglican; New York, U.S.A.; M.P. for Bristol 1774-1780 and 1784-1790; Member New York Sta te Senate 1792.

Thomas DANIEL, b. l763, d.6 Apr. 1854. a.91: cllr. 1785-1798, a ldn. l 798- 1835. mayor 1798, sh. l 787; To ry; Merchant and West India proprieto r: £200,000: Anglican; Berkeley Sq .. C lifton: G .I.P. 1806-1807, T .I.P 18 10- 18 17, J .P. 1841: see a lso notes on councillors.

Hugh W. DA SON, b.l788, d. l 5 Feb. 1840, a .52: cllr. l828-1 835, sh. l830; Tory; Merchant; £I 00; Anglican; Ba ld win St.

Joseph EDYE, b.l765, d . IO Sepl. 1820, a.55: cllr. l794-1820, mayor 1802, sh. l 795: Whig; Banker; £600; Unitarian; Stokes Croft , SI. Pa ul's.

James FOWLER, b. l765, d.23 May 1838. a.73; cllr. l8 10-182 1 a nd 1833- 1835. aldn . 1821-1833, mayor 1814. sh. l811; T ory; Merchant ; £600; Dissenter: Ha rley PI .. Clifton.

James N. FRANKLY N. b. l783, d.l5 Dec. 1852, a.69; cllr.1831- 1835, sh. l833 and 1835; T ory: Snuff and tobacco manufacturer: estate unknown; Anglican; Harley PI., Clifton; J .P. 1841; see also notes on councillors.

William FR I PP, b. l76 1, d.IOJune 1829, a.68; cllr. l798- 18 12, a ldn . l8 12- 1829, sh. l799: Whig; Soap manufactu rer; £80,000; Anglican; Kingsdown Pde.

William FR IPP, Jr., b. l785. d.24 Dec. 1871, a.86; cllr.l 81 4-1 82 1, aldn . l82 1-1835, mayor 1820, sh. l815; Tory; Soap manufacturer; £ 140,000; Anglican; Cote House, Stoke Bishop; J .P. 1836, C harity Trustee 1852- 1865; see a lso notes on councillors.

JohnGARDI ER.b. l778,d.29Sept. l832, a .54;cllr. l8 19-1832,sh. l820and 1825; T ory; Civil servant; £40; Anglica n; Berkeley Sq., C lifton; Postmaster 1825-1832.

Christopher GEORGE. b. l786, d.30 May 1866, a .80; cllr.l 833- 1835; Whig; Patent shot manufacturer; £3.000; Anglican ; Priory, Abbots Leigh: J .P. 1841; see a lso notes on counci llors.

236 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

Jamcs GEORGE, b. l 789, d.27 J une 1858, a.69; cllr. l8 14- 1827, a ldn . l827- 1835. mayor 1823. sh. l8 15 and 1820; To ry; Brewer; £25.000; Anglican ; Montaguc Pdc .. Kings­down; J.P. 1841 ; sec also notes on councillors.

Philip GEO RGE. b. l 75 1. d .24 Mar. 1828. a .77; cllr. l 807- 1828, sh. l 809, 181 4 a nd 18 16; Whig; Brewer; £ 12,000; Anglica n: Berkeley Sq., C lifton.

Gabriel GOLD EY, b. l 766, d .9 Feb. 1837, a.7 1; cllr.1 822- 1829. aldn. l829-1835, mayor 1828. sh. l823 and 1826: Tory; Retired : £ 16.000; Anglican ; Clifton Hill; see also notes on councillors.

Jo hn GORDO , b. l 758, d. 20 Dec. 1839, a.8 1: cllr.1789-1825, sh. l790; Politics uncertain; Civil servant; £ 1,000: Anglican(?): Rodney PI., Clifton; Collector of Customs 18 I 3- I 832.

T homas H ASSELL, b. l763, d.l8 June 1829. a.66; cllr. 18 18-1828. aldn . l828-1 829, mayor 1825, sh. l819, 182 I a nd 1827: Tory; Tanner; £20.000: Anglican; Bedminster H ouse, North St.

John HAYT HORNE, b. l 767. d . l6 July 1845. a.78; cll r. 1803- 18 14. aldn . l8 14-1835, mayor 1809, 18 18 a nd 1826. sh. l 804 and 1808; Tory: Merchant ; £1.500: Anglican: Hill House. G loucestershire; G. I.P. I 817.

Samuel H E DERSO , b. I 762, d .2 I Feb. 1821. a.59; cllr. I 803-182 I, sh. l 804: Whig: Sugar refiner (in prison): £100; Unitarian(?); Fleet Prison. London .

A bra ham H I LHO USE. b. I 787. d . 16 Ma r. 1867, a .80; cllr. l8 12- 1822, aldn. i822- 1835. mayor 1822, sh. l8 13 a nd 18 18; Tory; Shipbuilder; £2,000: Anglican; Stoke Bishop; see also notes on councillors.

George HI LHOUSE, b. l778. d.24 Dec. 1848. a.70; cllr. l8 12- 1822. a ldn.l822-1 835, mayor 182 1. sh. l8 13 and 18 18: Tory: Shipbui lder; £5,000; Anglican; Coombe House, Westbury.

Richa rd H UNT , b. l775. d . l 8 Nov. 1866, a.9 1: cllr.1 835; Tory: Metal merchant: £ 120.000: Anglican; Berkeley Sq., Clifton.

William INMA , b.l756. d .28 A pr. 1833. a .77; cllr.1805- 1833. sh. l806 and 181 1: Tory; Merchan t: £ 12,000: Unitarian: Be rkeley Sq., C lifton.

Robert J E Kl S , b. l 776, d .4 Aug. 1837. a.6 1; cl lr. 1820- 1835. sh. l82 1: To ry; Tanner; £6,000; Anglican: Redcliff Pde(?).

George K l G. b. l 756, d.29 Dec. 183 1, a .75: cll r. 1809- 1825. sh.18 10; Whig; Agent; estate unknown; Unitarian ; Shannon Court, Corn St.

Joseph LAX, b. l775, d .23 Ja n. 1845, a .70; cllr. l83 1- 1835, sh.l832; Tory; Wine mer­chant ; £ 12,000; Anglican; Pa rk St.

James LEAN, b. l 774. d .9 July 1849. a .75: cllr. l832- 1835. sh.1834; To ry; Ba nker: £30.000: Anglican: Clifton Hill: J .P. 1841 ; sec also no tes on councillors.

John E. LU ELL. b. l 790. d .2 1 June 1870. a.80: cllr.l 829- 1835. sh. l830: Whig; Merchant: £14,000: Unitarian: Ashley Farm, St. Paul's; J .P. 1836; see a lso notes on councillors.

Pete r MAZE. J r. , b. l806, d . l4 May 1869, a .63: cllr.1833-1835. sh. l834; Tory: Iron merc hant: £350,000; Anglican; Berkcley Sq., Cli fton; see also notes on councillors.

Henry W. EWMAN, b.l788, d .24 July 1865, a.78: cllr.1 827- 1835. sh. l828; Tory: Merchant;£ 1,500: Anglican; Ric hmond Tee .. C lifton; J .P. 1836, Deputy Lieutenant o f G loucestershire.

Jo hn OBLE, b. l 744. d .9 Jan. 1828, a.84; cllr. 1772- 1792. a ldn . l792-1828. mayor 1792. sh. 1773 ana 1776: Whig: Civil servant: £9,000; Anglican; Portland Sq .. St. Pa ul's: Audi tor of Public Accounts 1806- 1823.

John PAGE. b. l748, d .23 Feb. 1821. a .73; cllr. 1793-1807. aldn.1807-182 1, sh. l 794: Whig: Retired: £2,000: Baptist; King Sq ., Stokes Croft.

Charles PAY E. b. l779, d.4 Dec. 1846, a .67; cl lr. l 827- 1835, mayor 1835, sh. l828; Tory; West India merchant; £40,000; Anglican; Freeman House, Clifton; J.P. 1836; see also notes on councillors.

C harles PIN NEY, b. l 793. d . 17 July 1867, a. 74; cllr.l 822- 1835, mayor 1832, sh. l824; Whig (ti ll 1835); West India p roprieto r; £60.000; Anglican; Great George St. ; see also no tes on counci llors.

Edward PROTHEROE, b. l 775, d.24 Aug. 1856, a.81: cllr. l797- 1829, mayor 1805; Whig: Retired;£ 12,000; Anglican: Tutshill, Chepstow. Monmouth: M.P. for Bristol 18 12-1820.

Appendix 4 137 Gcorgc PROTHEROI. b 17Ko. d.l9 Apr. IXoO. a 74. cllr IX29-IX35. sh.IK31. Wh1g.

Wc>t lndm merchant. l600. Anglican: Park St. Sir llcnry PROTIII:.ROI . b.l777. d. IX June IX40. a.o3: cllr. IX02- IXJ5. ,h. I!HJ3 and

IXOX. Whig; Retired; (20. n:lig1on unl..llll\\n; Llantarnan Abbey. Nc\\port. \1on­mouth>hlrc; Kmghted I X03

Ph11ip PROTIIEROf- . b 171<1. d.4 June 11<46. a.65. dlr I 1<04- 1 !05. ma)or I X 11. sh IX05; \\"h1g. We,t lnd1a merchant. UOO; Anglican. Cmc Hou'>c. Stol..e B1shop.

ll cnr) RICKfTTS. b.I7!U. d 7 \ la) IH59. a 7o. cllr 11'115: Wh1g (till 11<35): Gla" manufacturer. 00.000. l nnanan. The GrO\c. Bn,lmgton. J P I !<36. see al'>o notes on councillors.

Thoma> 11 RIDDLL. b 1794. d 19 Scpt l li4X. a 54. dlr l!l2X-IX35. sh.IR29; Tor]. Lead merchant; l25.000. 1\nglican; Portland S4 .. St Paul\. see also notes on councillors.

N1cholas ROCH. b.I7X6. d.6 Apr. I X66. a.XO; cllr. l X 18- 1 H34. aldn 1834-1 R35. ,h.l X 19 and 1822; Tor}: Oil and leather manufacturer; U.OOO. Anglican: Berl..clc) S4 . Cliflon. '>CC also note'> on l·ouncillor'

I ranm SAV\GE. b 1790. d 21 Oct. IX45. a 55. cllr lw.!S-1!05. sh 1!09. Tor). Sugar refiner. l50.000: \nglican. W1lder St . St Paul\('')

John SA\ \GE:. b 17!!5. d 9 Jan I H70 .• L!l5; cllr I X22-l X31. akin 1!131- UL\5. major I!DO ,md HUI. sh.l824 and IX26. Tory: Sugar refiner. l9.()()(); \nglican; \vilder St.. St Paul's('1): JP IX36. ( hant) Trustee IX36-IX65. '>CC abo note, on coun­cillors.

Dan1cl STANTON. b.I77X. d I 'i Jan. I !U4. a.5o; dlr.I!Q6-18J4. major 1!03. sh 1827; Tor}; Sugar refiner; 00.000; Anglican. Clifl I louse. Ashton.

S1r William STRuTII . b 1763. d I l cb. IH50. a.X7; cllr IX12- 1831. major IH14 and IXI5: Tor}: Merchant. e ... tate not a\,ulablc; Anglican. Rcdland: Kn1ghted IXI5.

Charb \'Al GIIA '- · b.I7X3. d.27 \1ar 1850. a.67; cllr I!Q5-IK29; Tor). Wool merchant. l450: Anglican: Cliflon Wood.

Sir R1chard Vl\uGH\'-. h.17o7. d.l6 Oct. IX33. a.66: cllr IXOI-IXIO. aldn IXIO­IX2X. ma}Or 1807. sh I!W2. Tor). Wool merchant. CO. \nglican. Rcdland Court. G IP 1803-1805. Kn1ghtcd IXI5.

William K WAIT. h 1797. d.22 \1ar 1852. a.55; cllr 1104-1!!35. :.11. 1835: lorj. "vl crchant; (2.000; Anglican. Rcdland Lodge; 'cc ai'>o note:. on councillors.

Charb L. WALKER. b.I7XX. d.21 hh. 1856. a.6!l. cllr. I822- IX35. mayor IH34. -.h.IX25 and I!Q9; Tor). Rcllrcd: l45.000: Anglican; Rcdland Villa: J .P IX41. -.cc abo notes on councillors.

William WA TSON. b. l7!<8. d 1 1 cb. I X70. a.X2: cllr IX34- 1 X35. Tor). Wine merchant. l3.0C)(); Anglican; Pari.. St . '>CC ,ilso notes on councillor'>.

Wilham WL\RE. b 1752. d 14 De~ IX36. a.X4. dlr 17!12-IX35: Tor): Ret1rcd: CIOCJ.()()(); Anglican: Great George St

John 11. WILCOX. h 17!<0. d 11 Dec. IX36. a 56: cllr IX05-IX16. aldn.IXI6-IX22. major 1!\10 and IXI2. sh.IX06; Wh1g: Rcllrcd. d1cd bankrupt: 1\nghcan. llamhrO<lk. Glouccstcr.,hlrc: RegiStrar. Court of Con.,c1cncc I !<24-1836.

APPLI"D I X 5

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 0 COUNC ILLORS

TOWN

The notes g1ven for each councillor arc 111 the foiiO\V~ng '>equcnce: I Name 2 Year of b1rth 3 Date of death 4 Age at death 5 Sen ice as an elected councillor 6 Sernce as alderman 7 SerHce as m a> or !l Political affiliation 9 Occupation (principal one dunng penodl

I 0 Value of estate at death 11 Rehg10us affiliation I~ Res1dence (principal one dunng penodl 13 Other Important pm.1t1om held

'vote

For info rmation on the sources used to pro\1de the above mformatlon, see appropriate footnotes 111 chapter e1ght

2 Complete records relauve to the value of c;tatc at death and detinue rehg1ous affi liatio n have not been able to be compi led.

3 In the entry about service on the Council. unless months are given, service commenced and ended '-'lth the elections 111 November ( 1835 December).

4 The list 1s inclusive of all councillors -.. ho first served before the election of I NO\ember 1851.

5 Because the she riff no longer ;at m the Counc1L appomtment to th1s position ha; not been treated as serVIce on the Counc1l \ly here a counc1llor held th1s pos1l1on. 1l has been recorded under "Other Important pthlllons held"

6 \bbrcHat10ns used. J P. Ju;t1ce of the Peace G I P Go\ernor of the IncorporatiOn of the Poor T I P Treasurer of the lncorporauon of the Poor

Wilham E. ACRAMAN. b. l799. d 27 0\ ll\74, a 75. cllr.1~35-1842: Conscnati\C; Iron 'v1erchant and engmecr: £300: -\nghcan. Lllfield PI. . Chfton

\ bra ham A LEX A DER, b. l790. d.~~ Jul> I X70, a .XO: cllr 1!!45-1866: Con;ervatl\e; \1 erchant and sh1p agent: t.l6.000, Jc\v, Par~ St., St Augu;tme"s: Russtan Consul.

William W. ALEXA DER. b.l79!l, d 15 -\ug. H04. a .76: aldn 1850-1874: Con­servative; \1erchan t and sh1p agent, LIO,OOO, Jc\\, Bcrkeley Sq. St. Augw.tlnc';; Sicilian Consul.

Peter f- . AIKE , b.l799, d.3 Mar. IX77, a.7H, dlr.IX1X-IX43; Conservauve: Banker: £!!0.000: Anglican: Richmond 1 cc .. Clifton

Richard ASH. b. I7S I. d. ll Feb. 1866. a.85: cllr. l835-1 !D9. Li beral: Rcured : £90.000: Independent: Cotham House: JP. 1836. Chant} Trustee 1836-1850.

rranm K. BARN ES, b.l793, d . IJ Jul} 1876. a83: cllr.IX46-1849. aldn.l850-1868: L1beral later Conservative. Timber merchant. lX.!lOO: Anglican, ll orfield.

Appendix 5 239

Robcn G. BARROW. h IX07. d.4 July 1880, a.73: cllr 1850-1874. mayor IX53. Conscrvauve: Insurance broker. estate unJ..no,,n, Anglican: Rodnc} PI .. Cliflon. J P IX54.

Thoma., K. B\) L Y. b.IXOI. d.l9 June 1846. a.45: cllr.IX39-1845: Consenali\c: Banker: £40.000: /\nghcan('?); Frencha}. Glouce;tersh1rc: H1gh Shcnff 1838.

Charb L BlRN/\ RD. b.l X06. d.::!5 I eb. 1854. a 48; cllr.IH43-1849: Conservallve. Wc>l lndm merchant. 05.000; Anglican. Gro.,venor PI . Chfton.

Willlam 0 . BIGG, b.ll!OO. d 7 '\io, I !l74. a 74; cllr. HB9-1845. aldn.l X 50-I X6t{. Con-.ervauvc. rohacco and snufl manufacturer. L I 00: Anglican. HillSide. llenburj. J p 1858

Charb BLISSLT. b.IRil. d 16 'VIar 1859. a.46: cllr 1!!41-1847. (onsename: 'VIercham. L60.000; Anglican. f-reeman Hou>c. Chflon

Samuel BROW". h.I!!OI. d ~8 June 1!!50. a.49: cllr.1835-1839: L1beral. Tanner. 05,000: Anglican: RedddfCres .. Rcdchff: Charily Trustee 1836-1850. J .P 1841.

Roben BRLCL. h 179~. d.::!6 Dec. 1874. a.8::!. cllr 1849-ll\5~. L1beral. West lnd1a merchant. (450. Lnllanan. Cabm Chfl. l'renchaj. F-rench and Dutch Consul

John B. BURROLGHS. b.l806.d.I6Sept. 1878. a.72: cllr.1845-185!l and 1852-1!!76: Conservauve: Surgeon: £90,000: Anghcan: We,l Mall. Chfton.

Henr} BUS I I. h.l796. d ::!3 I eb. I !!57. a.61: cllr 1835-1842. Consen all\e: Merchant. (8.000. \nghcan. Lnficld llou>e. Chfton.

Wilham BuSIIl LL. h 1768. d.l9 Dec. l!l49. a.81, aldn.l835-1844. Conservati\e. 011 merchant: l5.000: Anghcan: Portland Sq .. St Paul's

Wilham D. BlSIIELL. h.l808. d 8 1-ch 1883. a.75: cllr 1840-1849. Con~enauvc. 'VIerchanl. 01.029: Anghcan: Portland Sq .. Sl Paul\.

Edmund BLT( 11£ R. b 1791, d. II July 1872. a.81, aldn.llOS-1850: Conservall\c. Wholesale grocer: estate unJ..nov\ n: Anglican: Grosvenor PI.. Chflon.

Thomas S. BUnTRWORlll. h.l817. d.5 Sept. 1842. a .25. cllr 1842. Con>ena­li\C; Sugar re liner: £12.000. \nghcan. West bur}

Thomas CARLISLE. b.l790. d.23 Jan. 1865, a.75, cllr I!D6-1839 and 1843-1!146; L1beral, Whobale haberdasher: U4.000: Anghcan: Pen Park. Westbury: Chanty Trustee 1836-1 !165.

Roben [ CASI. b 17ll2. d.3 'VIa\ 1844. a.62. cllr.1835-1844. Com.cnat1ve: West lnd1a propnctor. £5.000. \nghc~n. Grosvenor PI.. Clifton.

:'vllchacl H. CASTLE. b. I7X5. d.~3 Jan. 1845. a.60: cllr.l835-1839 and 1841-1 H45: L1beral: Rcllrcd: £35.000. Unnanan: Staplcton Grove.

Roberl CASTLL. b.l807. d I Jul} 11\66. a.59. dlr 1843-1849: L1beral: D1~llller:

£50.000. Anghcan. Redland Grove: J P. 1856 Wllhamll. CASTLE:, b. lXII, d. IO Mar. l!l65. a.54, dlr.llD?-1843: L1beral: Bre-..cr.

e~lale unJ..no-..n: Unilanan. Durdham Do"n \\1lllam L. CL-\RKE. b.l777. d .30 Apr. 1867. a 90: cllr 1837-1846. rna)or 1844.

Con>crvallve; Auorne;. £10.000: Anglican: Do-..r} Sq .. Chflon. Joseph COA TES. b.l797. d.24 July I 862, a.65: cllr.l850-1853 and 1856-1862: Liberal:

Spa proprietor: £10.000: Unitarian: Saville PI. Cliflon: JP. 1848. Ohver COATIIL PE. b.l804. d 11 1-cb. 1!186. a.lC. cllr 1842-1!!51: Conscnauve: Gla>'>

manufacturer. c<,tale unkno-.. n. ;\nghcan; Red land Green Thomas COLL b.l770. d .6 'VIa} 1!161, a.91: aldn.I838-IK47: Comervative: Silk

merchant: £100.000: Anglican: Avon'>lde House. Cliflon Do-..n. Joseph COOKSO"-. h 171;3. d.26 Ocl 1865. a.82; cllr I !B5-1843: Consenali\C.

Rcllred: £120.000; Anglican. Ro)'al YorJ.. (re, .. Chflon. J.P. 1836. Thoma, L. COL LSON. b.l809. d.31 Dec. 1877. a .68: cllr.1841-1844. Conservative:

Rcllred: £20.000: Anglican: GloucC'>lCr Ro\\, Cllflon. John COX. b. l805. d 19 Dt-c. 1878. a. 73: cllr 1851-1852. L1beral: Tanner: £60.000.

1\nghcan. h 1 Lodge. Bmhngton. J P 1854 Jame;, CUN I NGIIAM, b. l780. d 12 \liar. 1863. a .83: cllr.I835-183K: L1beral: West

lnd1a merchant. L5.000: Anglican: Kmgs Parade. Durdham: Charily Trustee 1!!36-1!!61

Thoma;, DAI'\I[L. b.l763. d6 Apr 1854. a.91. cllr.l835-1841. Conscrvatl\e: wc.,l lnd1a merchant. £200.000: \nghcan. Berkcle) Sq .. St. Augustme\: G. I. P. I !!06-1807. T.I.P IR 10-1817: J P. 1841

240 Bristol and its Mun icipal Government 1820-1851

William W. DA VIES. b. l787. d.25 Jan . 1862. a .75: cllr. l840- 1843: Conservative: Iron manufacturer: £8.000: Anglica n: Cote Bank. Westbury.

Cann DeW I TO . b. l 780. d. l9 ov. 1852. a. 72: cllr. l837- 1839: Conservative: Retired: £5.000: Anglican: Royal York C rcs .. Clifton.

John DRAKE. b.l 805. d. l 7 Jan. 1874. a .69: cllr.1835- 1840: Liberal: Tanner: £12.000: Anglican: East St. . Bedminster: J.P. 1836.

John F ISH ER. b. I BOO, d.25 Feb. 1877. a .77: cllr. 1843- 186 1: Conserva tive: Wine importer: £45.000: Anglica n: Great George St.. St. Augustine's: G. I.P. 1845-1 846, Charity Trustee 1852-1 877. J .P. 1858. High Sheriff 187 1.

Rohcrt F ISK E. b. l796, d. 21 May 1859. a .63: cllr. l837-1 840: Liberal: Grocery mer­cha nt: £6.000: Anglican: Du rd ham Down: C harity Trustee 1836- 1859.

James FORD. b. l79 1. d .2 1 Mar. 1838. a .47: cllr. l835- 1836 and 1837-1 838: Con­servati ve: Merchant: £5.000: Anglican: Harlcy PI .. Clifton.

Edward rRA M PTO , b. l802, d .30 Apr. 1885. a.83: cllr. 1839- 1842: Conservati ve: Attorney: £66.388: Anglican: York PI.. Clifton.

George W. FRA K LY 1 . b. l796. d .5 ov. 1870. a .74: cllr. 1844- 1850: aldn. l835-1844: mayor 1842: Conservative: T o bacco a nd snuff manufacturer : £80,000: Anglican: Richmond Hill a nd Clifton Hill. C lifton: M.P. Poole 1852- 1865.

James 1 . F RA K L Y . b. l 783. d. l 5 Dec. 1852. a.69: cllr.1 835- 1842. mayor 1840: Cor.servative: Tobacco a nd snu ff manufacturer: estate unknown: Anglican: Henbury Hill : J.P. 184 1.

Charles B. FR I PP. b. l806. d.6 Aug. 1849. a.43: cllr.1 835- l 40: Liberal: Merchant: £30,000: Anglican: Park Row. St. Michaer s: Charity Trustee 1836-1 849.

Edward B. F RI PP, b. l 787. d . l Sept. 1870. a .83: cllr. l835- 1842: Liberal : Retired: £4.000: Anglican: Burfield House. Westbury.

Will iam F RIPP. b. l785. d.24 Dec. 1871. a .86: a ldn . l835-1 845, mayor 1836: Con­serva tive: Reti red: £140,000: Anglican: Cote House. Durdham Down: J.P. 1836. Charity T rustee 1852- 1865.

Christopher GEORGE. b. l 786. d.30 May 1866. a.80: cllr. 1835- 1841: Conservative: Lead manufacturer: £3.000: Anglican: Abbots Leigh. Somerset: J .P. 184 1.

James GEORGE. b. l 789, d .27 J une 1858. a .69: cllr.1835- 1846. aldn . l847-1853. mayor l ll37: Conservative: Reti red: £25.000: Anglica n: Cotham: J .P. 1841.

James GIBBS. b. l791. d .24 Feb. 1853. a. 62: cllr.1844- 1850 and 185 1-1853, a ldn . 1835-1 844. mayor 1843: Conserva tive: Vitriol manufacturer: £20,000: Anglican: Great George St. . St. Augustine's a nd Clifton Pa rk: J .P. 1848.

Thomas F. GI LB ERT. b.l797. d.3 1 Jan . 1870. a.73: c llr. l850- 1856: Li beral: Registrar of Birt hs. Marriages and Deaths: estate unknown: Wesleya n: Colston 's Parade. Rcdcliff.

Gabriel GOLD EY. b. l 766. d .9 Feb. 1837. a.7 1: cllr.1835-1 837: Con ervative: Retired: £16.000: Anglican: Clifton Hill. C lifton.

William GOLD EY, b. l 795. d.24 Jan. 1850, a.55: cllr. l840- 1850. mayor 1847: Con­servative: Retired: £5.000: Anglican: 34 Cornwallis Crcs .. Clifton.

John G RAY. b. l 772. d.21 ov. 1862. a.90: cllr.1842- 1848: Conservative: Retired: £25.000: Anglican: Cornwallis Cres .. Clifton.

Frcderick W. G R EEN. b. l 805. d. 27 Dec. 187 1. a.66: cllr. 1842-1863: Conservative: Shipbuilder:£ 100: Anglica n: Lawrence West on. Hen bury.

Thomas GREE . b. l 803. d.3 1 Oct. 1878. a .75: cll r. l842-1853, a ldn. l853-1 877: Const:rvative: Surgeon: £I 0,000: Anglican: Queen Square, St. Nicholas·.

C harles GREVI LE. b. l 788. d. l9 Sept. 1862. a .74: aldn. l841-1853: Conservative: Allorney: £ 12.000: Anglican: Berkeley Sq., St. Augustine's.

T homas R. G UPPY. b.l 798. d .28 J une 1882, a .84: cllr. l835-1837: Liberal: Sugar refiner: £ 1.242: baptized Unitarian . his children baptized Anglican: Berkeley Sq. , St. Augustine's.

William 0 . GWYER. b. l 782. d. 20 Apr. 1843. a .6 1: cllr. 1835-1836: Conservati ve: Hemp me rchant: £50.000: Anglican: Temple St .. Redcliff.

Jo hn K. HABE R FIE LD. b. l 785. d .27 Dec. 1857. a.72: cllr.1 838- 1857. a ldn. l835-1838, mayor 1838. 1839. 1846. 1849. 1850. 185 1: Conservative: Attorney: £40.000: Anglican: Royal York Crcs .. Clifton: C harit y Trustee 1836-1857, G .I. P 1838- 1844, J.P. 1848. Chairman. Bristol Waterworks Company 185 1-1 857.

Appendix 5 241

John W. HAL L, b. l 790. d.3 Ma r. 1875, a .85: cllr. 1835- 1842: Li bera l: G lass manu­facw rer: £30,000: Wesley:tn: Ashley Down.

Edward HALSALL. b. l802, d.20 Sept. 190 1. a .99: cll r. l849· 1850: Li beral: Wa tch­maker; £56.642: Anglica n; Somerset St. , Kingsdown.

John HA RD! G, b. l807. d. I8 J une 185 1,a.44: cllr. 1836- 1842;Conservative; Ret ired: £200,000; Anglican; Kingston Vi lla , Richmond Hill ; High Sheriff 1845.

Charles HA R E, b. l784. d. l3 Mar. 1840. a.56: cllr.1 835-1 838; Conservative: Floor clo th manufacture r: £30,000: Anglican; Berkeley Sq., St. Augustine's.

Charles B. HA R E. b. l8 10. d.3 Aug. 1855. a .45: cllr.1 839- 1854: Conserva ti ve: Floor cloth manufactu rer: £35.000: Anglican; Savile PI.. Clifton.

Henry C. HAR FORD. b. l798. d . l 5 Feb. 1879, a .8 1: cllr. l837- 1841: Conservative: Atto rney: £ 10,000; Anglican: Roya l York C res., C lifton.

Edward HARLEY, b. l774, d .8 Ma r. 185 1, a .77; a ldn . l835- 185 1; Conserva tive; Iron merchant; £35,000: Unitarian: Portland Sq .. St. Pa ul's.

T homas HA R RIS, b. l 77 1, d .4 Mar. 1843. a .72; cllr. 1835-1 841: Li beral; Malt distiller: £ 12,000: Anglica n: C hce e La ne. St. Phillip's.

John B. HA RWOOD. b. l 799. d. l6 Ja n. 1844, a.45; cllr. l837- 1838; Libera l: Whole­sale grocer; estate unk nown: Baptist; Lower Ashley PI.

Willia m HA RWOOD. b. l774, d. l l Feb. 1848. a . 74: cllr.i 835-1 845: Liberal; Merchant: £3.000: Baptist(?); Portland Sq., St. Paul's; Cha rity Trustee 1836-1 848.

William HAUTE VILLE. b. l 792. d.6 Oct. 1854, a .62: cllr. l 846- 1854: Conservative: Retired: £3.000: Anglican; Caledonia PI., C lifton .

Cam Gydc HEAVE , b. l797, d .4 Sept. 1865. a .68; cl lr. l838-1859, aldn . l859-1865; Conservative: Atto rney: £4.000: Anglican: G reat Georgc St., St. Augustine's.

Valentine HELL! CA R. b. l806. d.27 Feb. 1864. a.58; cllr. l840-1843; Conservati ve; Merchant; £200 (Austra lian): Anglican: Bcrklcley Sq., St. Augustine's; G .l. P. 1836-1837.

William HERAPATH, b. l797, d. l3 Fe b. 1868. a.7 1: cllr.l 835-1 840 a nd 1842-1863: Libera l: Philosophica l chemist: £600: Unita rian(?): Old Park . St. Michael's: J. P. 1836, Chari ty Trustee 1836-1 868.

Abraham HILHO USE, b. l787, d . l6 Mar. 1867. a .80: cllr. l835- 1837: Conservative: Retired: £2.000: Anglican: Sion Row. Clifton.

T homas W. HILL, b. l 789. d .21 Jan . 1874, a.85: cllr. 1843-1 849; Conservative; Retired; £ 140,000: Anglican: C ha rlotte St. , St. Augustine's.

John HOWELL, b. l777. d.29 Nov. 1854. a . 77; cllr. l 835-1 847: Conserva ti ve: Timber merchant; £25,000; Anglican; Pa rk Row, St. Michael's; J.P. 1841.

William S. JACQUES. b. l 768, d .23 Feb. 1845. a.77: cllr. l835- 1837: Liberal: Retired; £40.000: Anglican; Sion Row, C lifton.

Francis JAR MA , b. l796, d. IO Ma r. 1849, a .53: cll r. l841 -1849; Libera l: Atto rney: £5.000: Anglican(?): Bridge St.. St. Mary-le- Port.

Richard JO ES, b. l 790, d. l6 Jan . 1857. a.67; cllr. l849-1855: Liberal : Retired: £40,000; Unitarian; Ashley PI. . St. James· and St. Paul's; J .P. 1850.

Henry B. JO RDA . b. l802. d .30 J une 1854. a .52: c ll r. l 849- 1852, a ldn. l853-1 854: Conservative; Mercha nt a nd ma nufac turer: £16,300: Anglica n: Clifton Villa . Richmond Hill.

Thomas P. JOS E. b. l802. d. l9 Jan. 1875. a.73; cll r.1 847- 1850 and 1858-1 873. mayor 1864: Conservati ve; Mercha nt : £25.000: Anglican : Buckingham Villa . C lifton: Da nish Consul. J .P. 1868.

Willia m KA Y, b. l 797, d . l2 Ja n. 1861. a .64; cll r. I842- 1844, a ldn . l844- 1850: Con· servative: Doctor; £3,000; Anglican ; Caledonia PI., C lifton.

John M. K EM PSTER, b. l 792, d.26 Mar. 1872. a.80; cl lr. l850· 1868: Liberal; Shoe manufacturer; £3.000: Anglican: Wellington PI. , Clifton.

Richard J. P. Kl G. b. l 799, d.26 Sept. 1874, a.75; cllr.l 835· 1874, mayor 1845; Conservative: African mercha nt ; £70,000; Anglican: Redcliff Pde.; J .P. 184 1.

William T. P. Kl G, b. I806, d. l3 Sept. 1887. a .8 1; cllr. l841 -1880: Conservative: African merchant : £32.073; Anglican; He nleaze, Westbury; High Sheriff 1872.

Odiarne C. LA E. b. I793, d.l6 o v. 1865, a . 72: c ll r. l850- 1865, mayor 1861: Con­servative; Stationer and bookseller: (9.000: Anglican: Somerset PI., Clifton: J .P. 1856.

242 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

W. H. Gore LA NGTON, b. l802, d. l6 May 1875, a .73; cllr . l848-1 854. mayor 1852; Liberal; Retired; £160,000; Anglican ; Cornwallis Cres .. Clifton: J .P. 1848, M.P. fo r Bristol 1852-1 865.

James LEA . b. l774, d.9 July 1849, a .75: cllr. l835-1836 and 1839-1845; Conserva­tive: Banker; £30.000; Anglican : Caledonia PI., C lifton: J .P. 1841.

Robert LEONA RD. b. l 788, d .21 May 1863. a.75: a ldn. l85 1-1853; Li beral; Retired: £140.000: Baptist: Richmond Hill, Clifton; J.P. 1850.

Robert T . LILLY, b. l 785. d.27 ov. 1870. a .85; a ldn . l 838- 1844; Conservative: Brewer: estate unknown; Anglican: Ashlcy Farm. Ashlcy Hill.

Samuel LUCAS. b. l 770, d. l 5 Jan . 1853, a .83; cllr.1 839- 1842; Conservati ve: Fruit and spice merchant; £12,000: Anglican: Bishop St. , St. Paul's.

Thomas LUCAS. b. l796. d.l 2 Apr. 1856. a .60; a ldn.l845-1856; Conservative: Fruit and spice merchant; £40,000: Ashton Tump House. Ashton Hill.

John E. LU ELL, b. l 790. d.21 June 1870. a .80: cllr. 1835-1847: Liberal; Retired: £14,000; Methodist; Ashley Down: J .P. 1836.

John MAN INGFORD. b . l 777, d .22 Oct. 1854, a.77: a ldn . l835- 1838: Liberal : Banker: £ 14.000; Unitarian: Belle Vue, C li fton: T.I.P 1827- 1854.

Peter MA Z E. Jr.. b. l806. d . l4 May 1869. a .63; cllr. l835- 1836; Conservative; Metal a nd general merchant: £350,000: Anglican; Berkeley Sq., St. Augustine's: High Sheriff 1849.

Peter MAZE. b. l 769, d. l4 June 1849. a .80: cllr. l835-1837 and 1838-1 844; Conserva­tive; Metal and general merchant: £140,000: Anglican: Rownham Lodge, Ashton .

John W. M IL ES, b. l8 17, d.5 Nov. 1878, a .6 1; cll r. 1844-1 868; Conse rvative; Merchant and banker: £70,000: Anglican: Lcigh Court. Somerset; M.P. Bristol, April-J une 1868.

John M ILLS. b. l 776, d . l 7 Mar. 1849. a .73: cllr. l837- 1849: Liberal: Printer: £3.000: Quaker(?): St. Michael's Hi ll.

James MOORE, b. l 780, d.9 Apr. 1850, a .70: aldn . l 846-1 850: Conservative: Wine mercha nt; £2.000: Anglican: ew Road. Cotham.

Nehemiah MOORE, b.l 792, d.28 June 1847, a .55; cllr.1 835-1 847; Liberal : Leather manufacturer: £10.000: Quaker: Bishop St. . St. Paul's.

William NA ISH. b. l806, d.29 July 1875, a .69; cllr. l847-1859, aldn . l86 1-1873, mayor 1865; Liberal; Shoe manufacturer and hosier; £I ,000; Quaker: Brook field Lodge. Cheltenham Rd .; J.P. 1856.

James E. AS H. b. l778. d. 2 Jan . 1845. a.67: cllr. l 835-1 843; Conservative; Oil merchant: £35.000: Anglican; Great Gcorge St.. St. Augustine's.

Arthur H. PA LM ER. b. l806. d .28 Jan. 1868. a.62; cllr. l848- 1854 and 1855-1858: Liberal; Allorncy: £450: Unitarian: Marlborough Hill. St. James'; G.I.P. 1853.

Charles PAY E. b. l 779, d.4 Dec. 1846, a.67; cllr.l 835-1 841 ; Co nservative; West India merchant ; £40.000; Anglica n: Freeman House. Clifton: J .P. 1836.

Mallhe w PERKINS, b. l 798. d.6 June 187 1, a. 73; cllr.1 841 -1859; Conse rvative: Allorney; £4.000: Anglican: Colston 's Pde .. Redcliff.

Robcrt PHIPPEN, b. l80 1, d .5 J uly 1869, a.68; cll r.1 835- 1838 and 1839- 1854. aldn. 1855-1869. mayor 1841 ; Conservative; A llorney; £200.000: Anglican: East St.. Bedminstcr; J .P. 1850, Charity Trustee 1852-1 869, High Sheriff 1855 a nd 186.9, President. Roya l Infirmary 1869.

Charles PI N EY, b. l 793, d. l 7 July 1867, a .74: aldn.l 835- 1853: Conservative ; West India proprietor; £60.000: Anglican: Camp House, Clifton Down.

William PLU MMER. b. l 805. d. l4 Sept. 1857. a .52: aldn . l850-1856; Conservative: Silk merchant: £I ,000; Anglican; Kensington PI., Brislington.

James POOLE. b. l797. d .24 Dec. 1872, a .75; cllr. 1847-1872, mayor 1859: Con­servative; Coal Mercha nt; £60.000; Anglica n; West Park , Westbury; J .P. 1858.

John D. POUNTNEY, b. l 789, d .30 Dec. 1852, a .63: a ldn. l838-1 850, mayor 1848; Conservative: Ponery manufacturer; £ 12.000; Anglican; Richmond Hill . Clifton.

T homas PO WE LL, b. l 788, d .2 1 Feb. 1874, a.86: cllr. 1835- 185 1; Conservative; Glass manufacturer: estate unk nown: Anglican: Charlolle St. , St. Augustine's.

Thomas POWELL. b. l796. d . l 5 Feb. 1872. a.76: cllr. l842- 1854 and 1859-1 87 1:

Appendix 5 243 Libera l: Corn merchant and brush manufacturer: £ 18.000; Anglican: Rockley Villa. Montpelicr: Charity Trustee 1836- 1872.

Henry PRIC HARD, b. l 795, d .4 June 1864. a.69: cllr.1 848-1854 and 1855-1858: Liberal: Oil merchant: £70.000; Anglican; Ashley Farm: J .P. 1854.

Francis PRIDEA UX. b.l790. d .27 Oct. 1865. a .75: aldn. l844-1 850: Conservative: Attorney: £1 ,000: Anglican: Kingsdown Parade, St. James' .

Stephen PR UST. b.l771, d . l 3 Nov. 1850, a .79: cllr.1 837-1 840 and 1843-1849; Li beral: Merchant: £30,000: Methodist: Granby Hill . Clifton.

Thomas RA K I , b. l 778. d. 22 July 1849, a. 7 1: cllr. l849: Liberal: Merchant : £6,000: Unitarian: St. James. Barton: G.I.P. 1832.

Fredcrick RI CK ETTS. b. l790. d.8 July 187 1. a .81 : cllr. l835-1837: Liberal: Brewer: £ 1.000; Anglican: o rth Cote. Durdham Down.

Henry RI C KETTS, b. l783, d .7 May 1859, a .76: cllr. l835- 1841 . aldn . l841- 1859: Liberal then Conservati ve; Glass manufactu rer: £30.000: Unita rian : The Grove , Brislington: J.P. 1836.

Jacob RIC KETTS. b. l 780. d.4 Oct. 1846, a .66; aldn. l844- 1846; Liberal: Brewer: £40,000: Unitarian: Brislington.

Richard RIC KETTS, b. l779, d .3 1 Ma r. I 5 1. a .72: aldn . l 835- 1841 : Liberal : Brewer: £50,000: Unitarian: Park St. . St. Augustine's.

Thomas H. RIDDL E, b. l794. d. l9 Sept. 1848, a .S4: aldn. l835-1 841 ; Conservati ve: Lead merchant: £25.000: Anglican; Portland Sq .. St. Pa ul's.

Richard RO BI NSO , b. l 802, d . l7 Oct. 1878, a .76; aldn . l841 -1 878: Conservative; West India merchant: £30,000; Anglica n: Richmond Cottage, C lifton. icholas ROCH. b. l 786, d.6 Apr. I 66, a .80: a ldn. l835-1 838; Conservative; Retired: £3.000; Anglican; Berkeley Sq., St. Augustine's.

George ROG ERS. b. l809, d.4 Feb. 1891 , a .82: cllr. l849- 1858: Conservative; Surgeon: £2,200; Anglican; Park St. , St. Augustine's: G .I.P. 1855-1 856.

George E. SANDE RS. b. l78 1, d.2 Apr. 185 1. a .70; cllr. l835- 1839 a nd 1846-1 85 1: Liberal; Sccdsman: £25.000: Anglica n: Clifton Hill, Clifton: J .P. 1836. Charity Trustee 1836-185 1. Chairman , Bristol Waterworks Company 1846- 1851.

Thomas F. SA D ERS. b. l 792. d . l4 Oc t. 1876. a .84: cllr.l 35-1855: Libera l; Sccdsman: £1 0.000; Anglica n(?): St. Vincent's Parade. Hotwells and Berke ley Sq.

John SAVAG E. b. l785. d.9 Jan. 1870, a .85; cllr.1 835-1 836: Conserva tive: Sugar refiner; £9,000: Anglican; Wilder St. . St. Paul's(?); J .P. 1836. C harity Trustee 1836-1865.

John G. SHA W. b. I 80S, d.22 Oct. 1876, a . 71 ; cllr.1 842- 1863, mayor 1854 and 1855: Conservative: Mercha nt and soa p manufacturer: estate unknown: Anglican: Kings­down Pdc., St. James': G .I.P. 1847- 1849. J .P. 1854.

John SM ITH . b. l794. d .6 O\ . I 860. a .66: cllr. 1849-1858; Conservative: Retired; £1 ,500; Anglican: St, Michael's Hill.

Joseph G. SM IT H, b. l788, d .26 Mar. 1859. a .71 : cllr. l842-1 848: Liberal ; Ba rrister and j udge: £4,000: Baptist; Ashley Down.

Richard SMITH . b. l773, d.24 Jan. 1843. a . 70; cllr. l835- 1843: Conservative: Surgeon; £30.000: Anglican; Pa rk St.. S t. Augustine's: Charity Trustee 1836- 1843.

Edward J. STAPLES. b. l8 13. d . l2 July 1853. a .39; cllr. l841 - 1846: Conservative; Surgeon; (50: Anglican : Unity St.. College Green.

Thomas STOCK. b. 1768, d.27 Apr. 1838. a .70; cllr. l835. aldn . l835- 1838: Li beral; Sugar refi ner: £45.000: Anglican: li en bury Court ; G. l. P. 18 15- 18 16 and 1827-1 83 1, J .P. 1836.

Willia m L. T. TA U TO , b. l 779. d. l3 Oct. 1850. a .7 1: cllr. l838- 1841 ; Liberal: Barrister; £2,000; Anglican: S toke Bishop: Cha rity Trustee 1836- 1850.

Charles TAYLOR. b. l78 1, d . l 7 ov. 1861 , a .80; cllr. l 846-1 859: Conservati~e; Jeweller a nd silversmith: £25,000: Anglican: C harlotte St. . St. Augustine's.

Frederick TERR EL L. b. l804. d. l4 Aug. 1889. a .85: cllr. l847- 1883: Liberal; Surgeon: £58,000; Anglican(?); Queen Sq .. S t. Nicholas': harity Trustee 1852-1 875. J.P. 1866.

William T E RR E LL. b. l 769, d .25 July 185 1. a .82: cllr. l838- 1847: Liberal: Rope manufacturer; £1 2.000: Anghcan: Queen Sq., St ic holas·: Charity Trustee 1836-1875.

244 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851

Chnstopher J . THOMAS. b. l808. d.2 Jan 1!!94. a .X6: cllr 1845-1883. mayor 1875: L1beral: Soap manufacturer: £37.663. Unltanan, Ashley Lodge. Ashley H1ll; J P 1854.

George THOMAS, b.l791. d.7 Dec. 1869. a.78; cllr.1 835-1852; Liberal: Wholesale grocer; £200,000; Quaker; Great George St.. St. Augustme's and Eagle House. Bnslington; Charity Trustee 1836-1869. Pres1dent and Treasurer. General Hospital 1849-1869, Cha1rman. Bnstol Waterworks Company 1858-1869.

W1lliam TOTHILL, b.l784. d.2 Dec. 1875, a.91, cllr. 1836-1839 and 1840-1 855. Liberal: Manufactunng chemiSt; estate unknown; Qual-er; Redland Parade: G.I.P. 1833.

Charles TOVEY, b.l812, d.l June 1888, a.76; cllr.l847-1862; Liberal; Wine merchant; £13,274; Anghcan; Royal Yorl. Crcs .. Clifton; G.I.P. 1854.

Philip VAUGHAN. b.l800, d. l4 Apr. 1864, a.64; aldn. l844-1864: Conservative: Merchant; £140,000; Anglican; Redland .

Charles VI ING. b.l776. d.26 Nov. 1848. a 72; cllr.1836-1842: Conservative. Maltstcr; £20,000: AnghcanO): C harlotte St. St Augustlne·s.

Charles J. VI ING. b. l809. d.3 July 1869, a.60: cllr.1845-1848: Conservative; Merchant: £18.000; Anghcan; Park St. St. Augustine's.

John VI I G. b.l786. d.26 Sept. 1866. a HO; aldn 1835-1859. ma;or 1856 and 1857: Conservative: \llaltster and sugar refiner. ll4.000. Anghcan. R1chmond Hill. Chfton; Chant) Trustee 1852-1865. J P. 1856

Harman VISGER, b. l802. d.4 Jan . 1867. a.65. cllr. 1836-1839 and 1842-1860: L1beral. Merchant: £70.000. Anghcan. Brunsw1ck Sq .. St. Paul's and P1le House. Totterdown. Amencan and Prussian Consuls. Chanty Trustee 1836-186 7. Trea­surer. Gloucester County Court 1846

Charles WAIT. b.l793. d.25 Aug. 1!!68. a 75. cllr.l844-1854; Conservatl\e; Sh1p O\vner and sail maker: £16.000: Anglican; Clifton Wood.

William K. WAIT, b.l797. d.22 Mar. 1852. a.55. aldn.l835-1838: Conservative: Corn merchant: £2,000: Anglican; Redland Lodge.

Charles L. WALKER, b.l788. d.21 1-eb 1856, a.68: cllr.l835-1836: Conservative: Brass manufacturer: £45,000; Anglican; Red land Villa; J. P. 1841.

Richard B. WARD. b.l777, d.l Apr. 1853, a 76: aldn . l838- 1853; Conservative; Attorney; £20,000; Anglican; Down House, Durdham Down.

Charles WARDE. b.l787. d.5 Jan . 1869. a.82; cllr. l848-1851; Conservative; Ad1mral m Royal avy: £18.000: Anglican: Wethcrell PI. . Chfton.

John WAR E. b.l796. d.27 Feb. 1885. a.89; cllr.l !!49-1852. Conservative: Surgeon: £36,797; Anglican: Pen Avon House. Chfton Do..vn.

John WARNE. b.l766. d.l4 Oct. 1837. a 7 1. cllr 1836-1837: Consenat1ve: Wme merchant; £5,000: Anglican. Harley PI.. Clifton .

William WATSO , b.l788, d 3 1-eb I !!70. a.82. a ldn 1835-1844. Consenatl\e. Ret1red. £3.000: Anghcan. Park St.. St Augustine's.

Samuel S. WA YTE. b.l796. d.9 Apr. 1880. a 84. cllr 1835-1837: L1beral: Attorne;('>J: £ 12,000: Anglican; King St.. Stoke> Croft

Robert H. WEBB. b. l794. d.28 I eb. 1!.!75, a.bl. cllr 1839-1!!42. aldn.l859-1875. Conservative: Wholesale grocer. £20,000, Anglican, Kmgsdown Pde .. St. Jame~·

John WI:THER\IIAN, b.l806. d.l4 Oct H!77. a .7 1: cllr.l!l49-185:! and 1854-1877: Liberal; Merchant: £50.000: Anglican. Southwell St. St M1chael's: G. l P. 1851-185:!.

Henry 0. WILLS. b.l800, d.23 Nov. 1871. a.71. dlr.1845-1860. L1 beral; Tobacco manufacturer; £50.000; Independent; Somerset St.. Kmsdo,~n. J .P. I !l56.

W1lliam D. WILLS. b.l797, d.l3 Ma y 1865. a.68; cllr.l846-1861: L1beral : Tobacco manufacturer: £50.000: Independent: Somcr~ct St.. Kmg,do..vn; J .P. 1856. 1852-1865. J .P. 1858.

John Wl WOOD. b.l783, d.4 1-eb. 1843. a.60; aldn.l835-1841: Conservative: Iron manufacturer: £3.000; Anghcan; Litficld PI.. C hfton.

Jamcs WOOD. b. l 781. d . l9 Mar. IK46. a 65. cllr IR35-IK3R and 1843-lll46: L1beral: Agent: £6,000: Methodist; Pntchard St.. St. Paul\. J.P. 1836. Chanty T ru;,tee 1836-1846.

Hcnr; L. WORRALL. b.l798. d.8 Dec. 18n. a 74. cllr 1850-1852 and 1853-1863.

Appendix 5 245 Conservative: Retired;£ 12,000: Anglican: Caledonia PI.. Clifton: fo rmerly General in Indian Army, J .P. 1850.

William H. WYLD. b. l 796. d .28 Aug. 1853. a.57: aldn . l844-1 853: Conservati ve; Wine merchant : £ I 0.000: Anglican: West Park , Cot ham. •

( .

I NDEX OF NAMES, PLACES AND SELECTED SUBJECTS

(Abbreviations Cllr. and Aldn. have been used for counci llo r and alderman)

Acland, Ja mes. a ssessment of, 57 8; 21, 55 6, 66, 92, 98

Acraman, William, Cllr.. 130 Addresses, 82 3. 90, 148, 150. 202 Advowsons, 44, 68, 152, 153, 185 Age characteristics, of members of Cor­

poration, 26 7, 212: of members o f Council. 132, 195, 2 12

Aiken, P. F .. C llr .. 2 12 Aldermen , o n the Corporation. charac­

teristics of. 19, 3 1. 86; function of, 7. 11 , 19. 35, 52. 53, I 04: selection of. 19. 86, 2 11 : othe r references, 32. 54. 81. 98, 104

o n the Cou ncil , electio n of. 122 3. 126 7, 142. 143. 145, 149. 2 11 : o ther references. 127. 128. 200

Aldridge, John, 11 5 Allowances. 20, I 08, 154. 20 I Almondsbury, 153 Ames, Levi. Mayor. charitable gift of.

67, 156 Ames, J . A ., 50 Ande rson. C., 29, 136 Ant ro bus, J.. 183 Art gallery, 2 10 Assessors, electoral, 116. 145; see also

Revision Court Asylum, 190, 207. 210: see also Lunacy A llorneys, 69 Avon, River, 3, 17. 46, 69. 161, 177

Baillie, Evan, Aldn., 19. 55. 2 12 Baillie, James, 35, 146 Bald , Williarn, 171 Ball, Henry, 23 Bankruptcy, 25. 56, 130, 168 Bankruptcy Court. 163 Barrow, John , Mayor, 42. 87 Ba rtho lornew Lands, 66, 74: see also

Free G rammar School Ba ths and wash houses, Act concerni ng.

177; other references, 177- 8, 186 Beaufort, Duke of, 45

Bedminster, 3. 15, 16. 11 5. 116. 121. 145. 175, 180. I!D .

Berkcley. F. H . F .. 147 Bengough, Geo rge. Cllr.. I 05. 123 Bigg. W. 0 .. Aldn .. 132 Birmingham. T own Council of. 114. 15 1.

190, 192. 195 Bishop, Joseph. 158 Blackburne, Jo hn , 99 Blisset. Charles, C llr. , 198 Brando n Hill. 134. 162 Bra ndreth . H. R .. 115 Brereto n, T ho mas, Lt. Col.. 60. 61 Bribery. Select Committee o n. 38 Brice, William Dia per, 28, 30. 138. 161 .

197 &ice. William. Jr .. 138 Brickdale. Mall hew. Cllr .. 25 Bridewell , House of Correction , 11. 20,

54, 64, 158. 160, 163 Bridges, 26, 46, 152. 186: see also Bristol

Bridge, CJifton Suspensio n Bridge Bright , Richard . Cllr., 26. 44 Bright . Robert . 169, 173. 189 Bris tol. descript io n of, 3. 5. 205, 206:

economy of, 3 6. 205 6: populatio n o f, 3, 205. 206: see also Trade

Bristol Association for Pu blic Healt h. 190

Bristol Bridge, 15 Bristol Cathedral , 45 Bristol Municipal Annual. 200 Bristo l Po litica l Unio n. 36. 60. 62. 122 Bristol Times. 149, 198 Bristolian, 2 1. 55 8. 66 .. Rristowa ·s Pro phecy ... 20 I British Association Conference. 202 Broad Street. 70 Bro kers, 69 Browne. Robert, Lt. Gen .. 48 Buckna ll , H. W .. 208 Burges. Daniel. 37. 104. 106. 138, 160,

171' 197 Burges. Daniel. Jr., 138

::!48 Bris10/ and its Municipal ClH'emment 1820-1851

Burgc.,.,c,.l7.21.50.66.90.9!1.107.1 14. 130: we al.1o Freemen

Burl,c. E:dmund. 26 Bush. llcnr}. Cllr .. 17. 22. 50. 92. 105.

132. 133. 212 Bu>hell. Wilham. Aldn .. 141 Bu\ton. S1r Thoma>. 54 By-la"'· 152. 192

C ambndgc. S. and A .. 50 Camphn. Thoma;,, Mayor. 5X Can111ng. Gcorgc. 45 Canyngc. William. 135 C~>tlc. 'vllchael Hinton. Cllr .. 21. 119.

131. 149 Cattle Market. 15. 44. 73. 207 Ca~c. Damel. 123 Cl\c. John. Mayor. 26, 212 C.l\c. Stephen. Aldn .. 26. 212 Central (Bnstol) Ward. 116. 121 Ccrcmomes. 23. 38.44--5. SS 9. 11\6. 193.

202 (had\\ 1ck. Ed" in. 82 Chamber of Commerce. c,tabh'>hment

of. -17: other reference;,.!<. 47. 4!1. 90. 94. 9!1. 109, 133. 166. 167

( hamberlam. function of. 29. 43. 72. IOX ( hant1c>. and the Corporat1on. 30. W.

64--7.74.87.98. 103. IO!l, 109. 14X. 152: and the Counc1l. 66. I 09. 152 I. 155 6, 1!!5. 192. 194. 210. 213

Chanty Commissioner;,. 65. 66, 67, 7!<. 103, 105

Chanty Trustees (ll06). 66. 104. 109. 133. 145. 1-18 9, 155 6. 203, 204. 207, 209 10

Charters. 17. 21 3. 55. 113 Chart1sh. 159 ( holera. 70. 179. 190 Chmtma;, Street. 65 Church\\ardens. 7.14.116.119. 167.1l\.l:

fl'l' a/1o Select \ 'estnes Churche;,. 68. 81. 87. I O!l. 130. 150. 194.

202 3. 206; set• al1o Bmtol Cathe­dral. St. \ilary Rcdchffc

Clli/Cn!>, of Bri>tol. 61. 62. 63. X2. X6. H9. 91 3. 99. 102. 106. 109. 114. 139. 164. 168. 171. 179. 191. 199. 201 2. 203, 210. 213-4

City Solicitor. 28. 106. 13!l Clark. George T.. 179 Clarke. Wilham, Mayor. 134 Cht,igcrs, of Loan Money Che:.t, 32 Claxton. Christophcr. 136, 197 Chfton. 3. 16. 26. 115. 116. 117. 121. 131.

132. 144, 145. 165. 169. 171. 175. 183. 205. 206

Chfton SuspensiOn Bndge. X3 Clocks. tm\ n. I !19

C oache>. 69. 103. 161 Cobbett. Wtlham. 5 Collector ofT 0\\ n Dues. 136 Cob ton Soc1ct1es. n. 133 Commerctal Room<,, 133 Committee-.. of the Corporation. func­

tiOib of. 32. I 05; member;,h1p of. I X 19. other reference;, to. 33. 46. 72. 211

of the Council, function;, of. 136. 141. 153. 164, 165. 166. 180: mcmber>hlp ol, 142. 149, 203: other references to. 115, 141 2. IX2. 211

( ommon Council (pre-1 !!35). de;,cnptlon of, 17 8, 89 90. other reference> to. 22. 26. 31. R4. R6

Common Councillors (pre-1 1\35). func­tion-. of. 20. 53: selection of. 17. 20. 24. 37. X6; other references to. 21. 24. 25 X. 31. 34.40 I. 56. 68, !l5 6. 106. 107. 121 2. 123. 131. 140. 191. 196. 212 3

( ommunll} aCtl\ltiCS. 27, 85. 13.1 4. 17l\. 190

Con,enati\CS, nauon.tll}. 145. 146 7. 151. locall}. 119 25. 132. 133. 139. 142. 143 X. 149 51. 193 -1. 195.200. 2014.2134

( on-.enaii\C Opcrattve•," As;,oc1at1on. 39. 144

(on tractor,, 39. 154 Cook<.on. Joscph. Cllr., 133 C'oplcy. Sir John, see Lyndhurst. lord Coroner. 69 Corporation of Bnstol. area controlled

b~. 17. XO. 84. 214: demt>e of. 90. 107 10: famll} m~mbersh1p of. 26. 3-l. lunctlons of. 42 3. 69 70. 80 2. X4. 86 7. 93. 210: 1mage of. 88 9. 92 .1. 214. pohtiC> of. 19. 24 5. 26. JO. 14 41. R7. 211 2: reform of. 90 3. 94 5; rclatlom, of. \\llh Cham­ber ol Commerce. 47: relation' of \\llh Docb Company. R 9. 12. 213; rdauon' of. \\ 1th I ncorporatlon of the Poor. 10 I. 75: relat1ons of. \\llh Merchant 'venturers. !L 7R: relation> of. \\llh Pa~mg Comm1s­'1oncrs. 10. 14. relation> of. ~llh Turnp1kc Tru'>lcc;,, 9. 12: relations of. ~llh other bod1es. 6 7. 11 2. 39. 87. 90; religious charactenst1c' or. 19, 25 6. 3X. 44. 6!l. 83. nght'> and prcrogatiVCS or, 11, 17. 21 3, 42. 46. 47 9. 57, 60. 62. 71. 72. 79. 82 4. X6 7. 90. 92 3. 99. 104. 191. 213. 215: soc1a I hackground of mem­bers of. 24 5. 27 8: other reference> to. 6 7. 17 8. 22. J I. 33 4. 44. 45.

Index 249 Corporation cont.

7!i 9. 82. 93. 99. 107 8. 120. 198, 213 4

Corpor:ll ion of Bnstol. crillc1~111s of. con­ccrnmg absentee1sm. 30. 52. 54. 85; concermng chanties. 39. 66 7; con­ccrnmg commmee~. 33. concernmg the constitution ol. 22 4. 51. con­cernmg collectiOn ol due~. 47 50; conccrnmg finance. 76- 7, 88; con­cernmg general gne~ances, 44. 69 70, 86 9, 89 93. 9!!, 102. 106; concerning judicml ma tters. 54 R. 58 62, 91; conccrnmg ol'ficcr; of. !!5. 11 0; concern1ng police. 51 3. 59 61. 62 4; concernmg pollucs of. 3!!. 40; conccrnmg trade. 5. 46 51. 82, 89. 92. 10 1

Counc1l. we To" n Council Council House. 42. 44, 73. 75. 87, 97.

160 County Court. Act of 1846, conccrnmg.

161 Courts. Ci' 11, 53 4, 138. 152. 160 I. 207 Court or Assi7e, 53, 55, 154. 160 Court of Consc1ence. 53. 56. 58, 136.

160 I. 207 Court of Gaol Dcll~ery . 20. 53. 59. 108.

160 Court of \1a)or and Aldermen, 31. 32 3,

35. 64, 6 7. 70, 72. I OH Court of P1e Poudre. 45. 53 Court of Requests, 53, 137. 150. 160 I Coventry, Corporation ol. 40. 67. 77;

other references. 25, 9!!, I 0 I Cox. Jamcs. 146 Crime. 51. 159 Cunnmgham. Jamcs. Cllr.. 124. 133. 203.

209

Dame!, Thomas. 'v1ayor. 25, 26. 27. 31. 34, 37, 40. 57. 65. 72. !i4, 105. 122 4. 131. 132. 134. 148. 195. 212

Danson, 11 ugh. Cllr.. 25 Da~1cs. William, Cllr .. 130 Daw,, R1chard Hart , 35 Denmark Street, 65 Deputation~. from the C orporatlon. 47

!!. 105, 106--7; to the Corporation. 47 Deput) \1ayor. 126 De la Bcche, S1r Henry. 176 D~>trict Ward. 116. 144, 180 Doch. bill concernmg. 171 2. 186; com­

millcc. 142, 173; enquiry conccrn­mg, 171 2; municipalitation of. 132.· 164, 166 74. 188. 189. 191. 194. 213; . we alw under Port

Dock> Compan). finance~ of. 14. 166. 169. 170. 174; membership of. !i 9.

149. 207 8; mun1c1pal directors of, 149. 167. 208, 210; other references. 5. 6, 8 9. 46, 82, 97, 165, 166 72. 174, 214

Docf.. s Transfer Act, 1848. 174 Dona tions. b} the go~erning bod:r. 68.

76. 81. 154. 163. 186. 20 I Doncaster, Corporation of. 88 D ramage, comml!tee concerning. 180 I .

other references. 70. 82. 177, 180 I Drake. John. Cllr., 200 Dnnk\\atcr (Bethune). John E .. 97. 101 Dublin. 47 Dues. port, .lee under port charges a nd

tO\\n a nd mayor's dues Durham. Lord. 95

Edye. Adnana. 68 Elect iOns. aldermamc. I n-3

mayoral. 123 5. 126. 149. 151 mun1c1pal. m Bristol, 60, 108. 126.

129, 144 6, 170, 19 1, 20 1, 203, I ll

1835, 117 22. 124; si7e of the elec­torate 111. 118. 145. 2 11; malpractices at. 119. 144- 6; other references, 95. 103. 104. 115. 145. 200.

parhamentar:r. 20. 21. 35 7. 38 40. 57. 95. 101. 115. 121. 146 7. 211

Electncll) suppl}. 210 Ellenborough, Lord. 37 Elton family. 212 Encroachments, Act of 1837 concernmg.

161. 162, 20 I; other references to, 161. 164

Entertainment. 20. 44, 45, 75. 78 9. 8!!. I 08. 154. 1!!6. 193, 202

Estates. of the Corporation. alienation of. 43. 73 4. I 08; other reference~ to. 32.43 4. 74. !!ll; of the Council. 150. 153 4. 157 8. 184--5. 191

Exeter. Corporation of. 88 Expendl!urc. of the Corporation, 44 5.

50. 52. 68, 74 6, 79, 83. 87 8. 108; of the Council. 127, 153. 160. 161, 174. 185 8

£.\lraordman 8/ad Book, 38 9

f- a1rs. 69. 161 2. 198 Ferne'>. 69. 161 Finance. of the Corporation. accounts

of. 60. 62. 67. 7'2. 78. 87 !!. 90. 103, 108; dcfic1ts 111.76-7. 108; fine\ included 1n, 21, 31 . 39; intere~t

relat ing to, 74. 87; records con­cerning. 72 3, 76; other reference>. 29. 32. 42 3. 45. 48. 63. 72 9. 86 !i

of the Counc1l. commi!!ce concern m g . 142. 150. 175. 182, 183; economiC'> m. 153 4, 186. 1!!8. 190. fine>

250 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820- 185 1

Finance cont. relating to, 126, 128; interest relating to, 153, 154, 185. 188; loans relating to, 163, 164, 178, 185, 188, 194; o ther references to. 115, 152. 1 53~4. 157. 182- 8, 190, 194-5, 2 14

Finlayson, G . B. A. M .. 94. 96 Fire protection. 2 10 Fisheries. 161 Fletcher, Roben, 156 Floating Harbour. 3- 5, 8, 17. 46. 69, 101.

104, 134, 16 1. 165 6. 170. 173 4. 190, 205 6, 2 14

Foster's Almshouse, 67 Fra nklyn, George, Mayor. 128 Franklyn, James, Mayor, 130 Free Grammar School, 65--7. 80 I. 9 1 Free Port Association. 169- 73, 201- 2 Freeman , James, 28 Freemen. qualifica tions for, 2 1, 90: ot her

references. 21,38- 9.57, 92. 105. 114: see also under Burgesses

Fripp, C. B., C llr .. 145, 203 Fripp, William, Jr .. Mayor, 26. 27. 32,

40. 56. 72, 105, 106-7. 122. 124-5. 127, 13 1. 132. 133. 141 . 145. 147. 197. 199- 200, 212

Fromc. Ri ver. 11 2, 164, 177. 201 Fry, chocolate manu facturer, 4

Gambier. Edward J .. 97, 10 1 Garra rd , Thomas, 29, 137. 139. 153. 182.

197 Gaols. building of, 8, 15, 54. 2 13: other

references. 54- 5. 57. 63, 8 1, 152- 3. 160, 192, 209; see also Bridewell and

ewgate Gas supply, 15, 70. 83, 177, 190 Gaunts Earthcoll , 43, 154 Ga:elle, 98, 17 1, 179, 198 General Hospital, 15 George IV. King. 45 George. Christopher. Cllr. . 26, 122 3.

131, 149 Gcorge. James. Mayor, 127, 133, 170 Gibbs. James. Mayor. 126, 127, 128. 161.

2 12; Gibbs. James. J r .. 161 G iffo rd. Sir Robcn . 20 G ifts, 20, 63, 67, 79: see also Dona tions G loucester, trade of, 9. I 0 I. 172. 206:

other references. 159, 160, 166 Goldncy, Gabriel. Mayor. 32. 40, 105,

131 Goodenough, the Rev. J. J., 30, 37,

65-6 Gore Langton , W. H., Mayor. 130. 149 Government , cen tral and local. 16. 85.

90.107, 11 8, 150, 166.179, 192,21 4

Great Britain, S.S .. 202 G rea t Exhibition , 185 1. 133. 135 G rea t Western Rail way. 6. 83, 154, 166,

189 Great Western Steam Ship Company.

136, 167. 202 Green, Frederick, C llr. , 141 Green, Dr. Thomas, Aldn., 141 Greenwood, J ., 116 Grenville, Lord, 20 Grey, Earl, 60, 95 Griffith, Edmund, 30, 54 Gri ndon, J . B., 69 Guildhall, 44, 45. 53, 70. 163 4, 185, 186 Guppy. Thomas, C llr. . 133 G utch. J . M . ("Cosmo"), 22. 47. 49. 90.

92

Habcrfield. Sir John K., Mayor. 127, 128. 130, 132. 135 6. 14 1. 145. 195

Hall, Jo hn W .. Cllr.. 119 Harford , J. S., 132 Harley, Edward , Aldn., 128, 149. 16 1.

183: Harlcy, Edward. Jr .. 16 1 Harris, Win tou r. 29 Headrick, T. E., 30 Health ofT owns, Commission on, 176 7:

Report on, 178 Henderson. Samuel. Cllr .. 25. 68 Herapath, Willia m, Cllr., 133, 134. 140.

141 , 142, 149, 17 1, 178, 200 Hilhouse, Abraham. Mayor, 27, 34, 40,

79, 131 Hi! house, George, Mayor, 34. 57. 79, 131 Hi nton, dispute concerning oncon-

formist school room at. 150, 157. 194 Hobhouse. Sir John, 146 Hotwells, 164 Housing, 5. 177. 205, 206, 210 Ho"ard. John. 54 Hull . trade of, 9, 10 1, 205

Improvements. Acts concerning, 162- 3; commillee concerning, 141 , 162-3. 164: o ther references, 16 1. 162-5. 186. 188, 190, 193. 194, 20 1. 2 13

Improvement bodies, in Bristol, 10, 175, 178- 80.2 10: in general , 9 10, 192

Income. of the Corporation , 49, 73- 4. 79,8 1,88. 100.104.109,213

Income. of the Council, 153 4, 158. 173, 174, 183- 5, 187- 8, 190

Incorporation o f the Poor, membership of, 11 . 14, 207; rates raised by, 5, 11. 14. 183: and St. Peter's Hospital, 10. 178: other references. 6, 10- 11 , 16, 83, 99. 207, 208

Index 25 1

Indebtedness. of the Corporation, 77 9, I 09, 186; of the Council. 153. 154, 186--7

lnman. William. Cllr .. 25 Ipswich. Town Council, 114

Jackson's Charity. 207 Je\\ S, 131, 141, 151 . 203, 206 Jones, Joshua. 155 6 Journal. 40, 47. 98. 134. 156. 171. 179. 198 Judicial system. and the Corporation. 53,

55 7. 63, 104, 108, 136 and the Council. 152. 159 60. 192. 2 13;

see also Courts Justices of the Peace, before 1835.

cri ticisms of, 30, 5 1, 52 3, 54, 55 60, 6 1,89;powers of7, 10, 11 ,51;other references to, 9, 8 1. I 03. 153; a fter 1835. 133. 135, 148, 153. 160. 178. 203. 207. 209

Kay. Dr. William. Aldn .. 141 Keith-Lucas. Profe~sor B .. I 02 King. Richard . Mayor. 124, 170. 172 Kington. John Barnett ("A Burgess").

10, 23 4. 37. 45. 50 I. 78. 88. 92. 98. 119, 210

Kitchen ·s Charity. 207 Knight. J. L.. 105

Land Steward. 43 Langley. John. 29 Latimer, John . 50. 72, 77 Lax. J., C llr .. 123 Lean, James, Cllr. , 133 Leeds. Corporation of. 34. 43, I 08;

Council of. 143. 15 1. 176; other references, 97, 12 1, 205

Lee, the Rev. C., 65 Leicester. Corporation of. 40: Council of.

151 . 190 Liberals, in Bristol, 11 7 8. 120 5. 128.

133. 140 I. 142 7. 147 8. 150 I. 154. 193 4. 199 200. 203 4. 208 .. 209, 2 11

Library. 81, 137, 190, 198, 2 10 Licensing and inspectiOn . by the Cor­

poration. 69. 80. 8 1. 103: by the Council, 161

Lighting. 152, 175, 177. 179, 192 Lilly. Robert, Aldn ., 128 Litigation, by the Corporation. 23. 50.

54, 56, 69, 75, 90; by the Council, 134. 155 6. 165, 192, 200

Liverpool, Corporation of. 68, 70. 73, 74; Council of 143, 190. 193, 195, 199; trade of, 3, 9, 21. 82. I 0 I. 172. 205

Liverpool. Earl. 45 Livock. Miss D. M .. 76

Loan Money. see Clavigers of Loan Money Chest

Local Board of Health . 141. 180 I London. trade of. 9, 82, I 0 I, 205. 206:

other references. 33, 88. 158 Lord H igh S teward. functions of. 20. 193:

names of, 20, 45 Ludlow, Christopher. 68 Ludlow. Ebcnezer, 23. 30. 37. 48 9. 55.

90. 98, 99. 104, 137 8. 160. 197 Lunacy. 178. 190. 207. 208: see also

Asylum LuncH. John , Cllr .. 149. 177 Lynd hurst, Lord , 20

McAda m, John L. , 9, 49 Manchee, Thomas, 62. 66 7. 78. 92. 98 Manchester, Council of. 143, 176. 189,

190 Maningford , J ohn , Aldn .. 123 Markets. in the Exchange. 43. 69. 186: at

St. James. 43. 69: other references. 69. 161. 162

Mayors. before 1835. characteristic' of. 18- 19. 31. 33 4. 35. 86; functions of. 18 19. 31. 32. 3 . 53. 54. 108: selection of. 18. 35; o ther reference~. 23. 56. 61. 69

after 1835. characteristics of. 126. 127: election of, 123 4, 126. 127. 140. 149. 211 ; other references, 126 7. 134, 135 6, 154. 196, 201

Mayor's Chapel. 44, 45. 68. 150, 20 1 Mayor's House, 44, 45. 60. 62, 64. 154 Meetings. of the Corporation. attend-

a nce at. 32. 35. 85; o ther references, 32. 34, 38, 43. I 08

of the Council. attendan.:e at, 140. 142. 197; othe r references. 115, 139. 140- 1. 147 8. 197. 198 9. 2 11

Melbourne, Lo rd , 60, 6 1, 94. 143. 200 Members of Parliament . 38. 130. 146 7.

172 Merchant Venturers. Society of. func­

tions of. 8. 46. 140, 176: membership of. 8. 123; other refe rences. 6, 8. 4H. 82, 97. 133. 165. 173

Mercury. 23. 50, 5 1. 98, I 09. 11 7. 123. 159, 171 , 197

Merrick. George. 28 Methodists, 146 Miles. Philip J.. 35. 146 Miles. Philip W .. 147. 172 Miles. William, 170 Mirror, 98, 136. 169, 17 1, 179, 198 Misdemeanours, under the Corporation.

29. 30. 52, 56.66 7. 86. 88. 101. 106. 108, 136

under the Council. 159. 160. 182

252 Bristol and its Municipal Government 1820-1851 Municipal Boundaries. Royal Commis­

sion on. 114-5. 11 8 Munici pal Corporations. before 1835.

18. 22. 36. 54. 64, 70. 72. 99. I 04 Municipal Corporations Act. 1835, I 0.

94, I 07 8. 113 5. 123. 152 Municipal Corporations Bill . 43. 104-7.

109. 115 Municipal Corporations Commissioners,

Bristol sit tings of, 17, 40-- 1, 72, 78, 96 9: other references. 24, 94 6. I 00--2. I 02-4

Municipa l Corporations reform. 60, 94-9.104-5, 106 7. 108. 190 1,200, 210- 1

Municipal Corporations Report. 1835. on Bristol, 5. 52. 54. 67. 78, 82. 100 4, I 05; in general, 41 . 78, 93, 94. 99. 100. 102- 3

Museum. 2 10

ewcastle, Corporation of, 73, 74. 205 Newgate gaol, governor of, 136; o ther

references. 20. 53. 57, 63. 64. 160 ewma n, Henry. Cllr .. 40 ewspapers, 14, 32, 55. 60. 90, 93. 98,

117, 140. 149. 164. 168. 179, 198- 9 Noble, John. Mayor. 55

orthweston. 43. 154 uisances, 69. 81 , 152, 16 1, 162. 175

Occupations, of members of the Cor­poration, 26-7, 212

of members of the Council. 132. 212 Officers of the Corporation. salaries of.

28. 29. 109: selection of. 28 9. 37. 85: o ther references to. 28 3 1. 33. 44, 53. 54, 56. 85. 110

of the Council. salaries of. 136-7, 13S. 154, 184, 185, 193; selection of, I 36. 150; other references. 11 5. 136- 9. 162. 18 1, 186. 197- 8. 210

Osborne, Jeremiah . 105

Palmcr. A .. 150, 160, 161 Parkes. Joseph, 92. 94, 95. 96, 99. 107.

11 3, 148 Pa rks, 8 1. 162, 2 10 Park Street, 131 Parliamentary reform, 94, 96. 196 Pa rochial Deputies, Committees of. 8.

62 3. 64. 88. 90 Patterson. D. J.. 82 " Paul". 78- 9. 88, 92, 124 Paving Commissioners, abolition of, 16,

152, 178- 8 1, 198, 207. 208: functions of. I 0, 178 9; membership of. I 0. 15. 207; other refere nces, 6, I 0. 11 . 12. 13. 57, 70, 152. 163. 175. 177

Payne, Cha rles, Mayor, 40. I 04. 120. 122 Peel. Sir Robert. 96. 99, 107, 145, 148 Pe loquin gift. 148. 155 Petitions. from the Corporation. 106.

107. 159- 60. 166: to the Corpor­ation. 168. 170, 173. 177. 180: other references I 06. 118. 172

Petty Sessions. 53. 55 Phippen, Robert. Ma yor. 127. I 32 Phippen Street. 163 Pie Poudre. see Court of Pilots. 8. 46, 68. 69. 156. 165 Pinney, harles. Mayor. trial of. 6 1. 8 1;

other references. 26, 35. 93. 122, 124, 128. 131. 133. 149

Place, Francis. 92 Playfair, Dr. Lyon. 176 Police under the Corpora tion. 32. 40.

51 2. 58. 62 4. RI. 83. 87, 9 1, 100 undertheCouncil.109 10, 152.158- 9.

185. 186, 191. 192. 194. 2 10. 213 Political Union. see Bristol Political

Union Poor Law Commissioners. Report of. 10 Popu lation. of BriMol, 3. 205. 206 Port. charges at, 5. 8. 9, 165 7, 168. 169.

17 1 4. 190; see also Floating Ha r­bour

Porters. 69 Portishcad , 43. 44. 157. 166 Posta I service. 166 Poverty. 177 Powcll. Thomas. Cllr .. 134. 140 Praed. W. M .. 116 Prince Albert. 202 Pro titution. 69. 159. 161 . 162. 163 Protheroe. Ed\\ ard, J r.. 35. 60. 94. 212 Pu blic buildings. 44. 76. 88 Public llcalth , enquiries concerning.

176 7. 179. 206; General Board of. 179. 180; legislat ion concerning. 15 1. 178. 180. 208, 210; Local Board of, 141, 180; other references to. 70. 82. 132. 164, 175 8 1. 190. 194. 20 1

Public houses a nd taverns. 6. 3 1. 44. 69. 107, 162, 206

Public Works. Loa n Commissioners for. 163 4. 178. 188

Quaker;. 130, 20 I Quarter Sessions. 30. 53. 55. 97, 138. 152.

154. 160 Quay Warden , 109.136 Queen Eli zabeth's Hospital. 65, 68, 74.

77. 80. IS5 6

Radicals. 57. 95. 107 Rates. Act of 1845 concerning. 183:

Index 253

Rates co11t. borough, 152. 158. 164, 170. 181. 182 5, 188, 194 5, 205. 2 10. 214: collecllon of, 7, 13 4. 16. 183: county. 62, 63, 64, 74, 88, 89, 91. 213; survey relating to, 13, 43. 183. 205: other references. 13 ~. I 04. 174. 181. 190, 194, 20 1

Recorder. functions of, 20, 53, 108: names of. 20. 32. 37. 160: other references. I 08. 154

Redcliffe. 116, 121. 145 Redcliffe Hill. 163 RedcliiTe Street. 163 Redland, 131 Red Maid's School. 30, 33, 57, 65, 134 Redesdale, Lord. 37 Refuse. dispo~al of, 2 10 Religious characteristics, see u!lder Cor­

poration and T own Council Requests, see Court of Residences, of members of the Corpor­

ation. 26: of members of the Town Council , 131 2

Revising barristers, 116, 11 7 Revision Court, 116, 126, 145, 150 Reynolds, Joshua. 47 Ricketts, Henry. Aldn .. 149 Ricketts, Jacob, Aldn ., 149. 182 Ricketts family. 13 1 Riots, 1831. compensation for, 8, 32, 64.

9 1. 153. 185: Corporat ion a nd, 60-2. 75. 9 1: trials relating to , 60- 1: o ther references. 33. 38. 52. 58-62

Roads and st reets, 9 10, 69 70. 82. 162 5, 179, 186,213

Roch. Nicho las. A ldn .. 40 Roman Catholics. Emancipation of. 38,

2 11; other references. 130, 151, 203, 206. 211

Ropewalk case, 150, 194 Royal Infirmary, 15, 134 Russell. Lord John, 148, 203, 206. 209

St. Augustine. 3. 116 7. 121. 144. 164 St. James, 3. 11 5, 11 6-7. 121, 144, 146.

175, 183 St. Mary-le-Port , 67 St. Mary Redcliffe, 140, 163, 206 7 St. Michael. 3. 116 7. 121. 144 St. Paul. 3. 115, 11 6 7. 12 1, 144. 175.

183 St. Peter's Hospital. see Incorporation

of the Poor St. Philip and Jacob Without. 3. 16. 68.

115, 116 7. 12 1. 144. 175. 180. 182. 205

St. Stephen ·s Ringers. 27 Sanders, George, Cllr., 133, 209

Savage. J ohn. Mayor. 13 1 s~werage. 178 Seyer, the Rev. Samuel, 46, 68 Shaw, J . G .. Mayor. 130. 132. 140. 170.

197. 212 Sheffield , Council in. 143. 205 Sheriffs, before 1835, selection of. 18. 20;

other references, 20, 22, I 08: a fter 1835. 123. 126

Shipping, 46, 165 6, 206 Sir T homas White's Cha rit y. 39. 67 Small Tenements Act. 1837, 183 Smith, J . G. , 150 Smith , Joseph. 160 Smith, Richard , Cllr.. 134 Smith. the Rev. Sydney. 38 Somerset, Lord. 40 Southampton , local governmen t in. 12,

70, 82. 93. 108, 119. 151, 190. 192. 213, 2 15; trade of, 4, 205

Staples, Edward , Cllr. . 130 Stapleton, 178 Stock, Thomas. Aldn ., 11. 123, 124. 127 Stockland Bristol, 43. 154 Superann uation, 68, 159 Swansea. Corporation of, 50, I 08:

Council of. 151, 190

Taunton. William. C llr .. 197 Taverns, see u11der Public houses Temple Hospital. 207 Temple Meads. 44. 153 Temple-Patterson, A., 19 1 Tenterden, Lord Chief Justice, 50 The Times , 164 Thomas, George. Cllr .. 4. 133, 175. 197.

212 Thorn. Romainc. 3 Tory Party, in Bristol. policies of. 36--7.

38, 40 I, 87: nationally, 95- 6, I 07; o ther references. 7. 34-6. 37-4 1, 60, 61. 87. 90. 92, 105

T othill, William, C llr. , 122, 133, 170 T oulmin Smith. J .. 180 T own a nd Mayor's D ues. bills concern­

ing, 48- 9. 87: collec ti on of. 136: legality of. 47. 48, 50- I. 9 1: prosecu­tions concerning, 50, 75, 173: reductions in. 46. 47, 49 . 51. 82. 109. 173: yield from. 47. 49, 73, 166. 173: o ther references. 13. 22, 46 5 1. 82. 10 1. 107

Town Clerk , before 1835, 23. 29- 30, 55, 56. 68: after 1835. 137-9

T own Council, of Bristol, area governed by, 115, 183. 186, 192,2 14: functions o f, 152- 3. 176. 191- 3; politics o f. 127 8. 142-4. 147- 50, 151, 193 4,

254 Bris tol and its Municipal Government 1820- 1851

Town C ounc il- cont. 203--4, 211- 2; powers of, 141, 152-3. 159, 191, 196. 207: relations o f, with C ha rit y T rustees. 155- 6. 209-10: relations of. with Doc k Com­pany. 149, 166-8, 208. 2 14; relat ions of, with the Incorpora tion of the Poor, 207- 8; relations of, with J ustices of the Peace, 209; relat ions of, with Paving Commissioners, 175, 177- 8. 208; structure of. 11 6. 195-6: ot her references to. 11 8, 125, 126. 128- 9. 136. 151. 153. 173, 178. 188. 196. 200. 207. 2 10. 2 13. 2 15

T own Councils, fi xing the boundaries of, 115: franchise for, 114: functions of, 152- 3, 176. 18 1, 190- 1, 207: o pera­tions of, 11 5-6: str uctu re of, 11 3-4: o ther references to, 113- 6. 151. 189. 190- 2, 196

Town Councillo rs, fa mily relationships o f. 13 1; nature o f service of. 128- 9. 140- 1, 197. 212; qua lifications of. 104, 107, 126, 204; socia l back­ground of. 24-5, 27- 8; other refer­ences to, 119- 20, 126- 7, 128- 9, 132-4, 139, 140. 142- 3, 149. 167, 176. 178. 183, 191. 193--4. 195- 7. 199, 200- 1. 2 12- 3

T rade . of Bristol. before 1835, 3- 5, 45- 6, 47, 82, 98, 100-1 , 109. 166, 21 4: a fter 1835. 165-6. 168- 9, 174-5, 189. 205-6. 2 14

Treasurer, 137, 139 T revelya n. G . M., 19 1 Trials, 54, 56, 6 1 Trin ity A lmshouse. 67 Trinity Hospital, 67 Turberville. A. S .. 107 Turnpike Trustees. functions of. 9:

membership of, 9, 207: ot her refer­ences, 6, 9, I 03. 208

Tynda l, Si r Nicholas, 37

Unitarians. Lewin 's Mead, 25, 13 1 Unity Street, 65 Urban problems, 9, 71. 81- 2, 84. 93. 94.

176, 179, 190, 206

Va ughan, Sir Richa rd , Ma yor, 25. 56. 13 1

Vestries, Select. functions o f. 7- 8, I I; po litics of, 7: o ther references to. 6. 12, 14, 16, 103

Victo ria Street. 164. 165 Vining, John . Mayor, 128. 133, 172. 208 Visger. Harman, Cll r. , 50, 98, 10 1. 105.

133, 134, 139, 140, 14 1. 149, 170, 172. 204, 212

Vyvyan, Sir Ric hard , 35, 104, 105, 107. 146. 148

Wa it, William K .. Cll r. . 13 1 Walker. Charles, Mayor. 27 Wa lker. C. H., 30, 55. 92 Wards ofBristol. 114, 116- 8. 121. 127.

143-4, 145 Wa ring. S .. 117 Wa tch, 52, 67 Wa tch Committee. 14 1, 158- 9 Wa ter Bailiff. 109 Wa ter supply and the Wa terworks Com­

pa ny. 15, 140. 175- 6, 179; other references to, 15. 70, 82, 140. 175- 7, 179, 190. 198

Wa tson. William, Aldn .. 40 Wayte, Samuel. C llr. , 133 Wea re, Willia m. C llr .. 26. 67. 163 Webb. Sidncy and Beatrice. 7. 9. 19, 22.

9 1. 100, 104 Wellington , Duke of, 45 Westbury, 11 5. 175, 183 West India interest. 23, 24-5. 27. 40.

169. 206 Wetherell. Sir C harles, 20- 1. 32, 37, 38.

59, 60.62. 105- 7. 159. 160 Whig Pa rty, in Bristol. policies of, 36.

59, 60: nat iona lly. 94. I 02: other references to. 35-7. 40. 59, 90. 92. 211

White, Thomas, 67 Whitson. Aldn., 65 Wi lcox. John H., Mayor. 29. 53. 136.

160 Wills. W. D., C llr., 145 Wills, to bacco ma nufacturers, 4. 206 Wine Street, 158 Wood, J amcs. C llr., 149. 200 Worcester, Marquis of, 37 Worrall. Samuel, 28. 68

I N VERSifY .Jf l I

76 09409

..

. ·.~~ ...

... :-· "' ······:··:: ... ,. ...... .

·· ...

.·· '